Citizens of Two Kingdoms: Applying the Reformation Two Kingdoms Theology to the Malaysian context
Election fever is boiling over. You
can see it in campaign banners fluttering in the wind. You can hear it in
passionate ceramah from aspiring candidates
and resounding cheers from their supporters. You can feel it in the SMS’es,
Facebook updates and tweets that assail your digital devices. On May 5,
Malaysian citizens from all walks of life thronged to polling stations around
the country to exercise their much-anticipated duty to vote for their
representatives in Parliament and state governments.
In the midst of such unprecedented
excitement over the 13th general election, some Christians have
expressed concern when pastors or priests seem to make fun of the government or
endorse a particular political party. “Don’t politicize the pulpit”, they say.
“Whatever happened to separation of church and
state? The body of Christ must always remain united. If leaders take
sides in a highly polarized election, how could they bring healing and
reconciliation after the dust has settled?”
Other believers take seriously the
preacher’s task to speak up and take sides against blatant injustice. “Did Jesus pull punches against the corrupt leaders of
His day?” they ask. “Confronting the powers require us to name people or
parties for their unjust practices. Sure, the pulpit can be a place to tell people
whom to vote for without selling out to partisanship! The church cannot remain
neutral.”
Therefore
it is timely for us to consider afresh the complex relationship between the Kingdom of God
When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus
whether he was the king of the Jews, he replied by saying, ‘My kingdom is not
of this world’ (John 18:33 , 36). The
“kingdom of God 4:17 )[1].It has
political as well as religious connotations. Religiously, it is the kingdom
of God kingdom of God
In a real sense, the kingdom has
arrived and present in the midst of gathered believers (Matthew 13:16-17, Luke
17:20-21). But the kingdom is also yet to come in its fullness (Matthew 25:34).
One day, the King will return to usher in His healing justice so that the
kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord (Revelation 11:15 ). Meanwhile, the reign of God is like a
seed – its hidden life grows into maturity and produces good fruit even in the midst
of hostile opposition (Matt. 4:26-29; 13:36-42). As followers of Jesus, we live
in the already/not yet tension of God’s kingdom within earthly nations of the
world. We are citizens of two kingdoms.
But how do we navigate the
complexities inherent in our dual citizenships?
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms
During the Reformation, Luther steered
a path between two conflicting tendencies: to confuse the two kingdoms and to
divorce the two kingdoms. On one hand, Pope Boniface VIII taught that both spiritual and temporal swords are under the control of the Roman Church. The
spiritual sword is wielded by the priests while the temporal sword by the hands
of kings and soldiers as their subordinates (Unam Sanctum). On the other hand, some radical Anabaptist groups
rejected any Christian involvement in society and sought to escape from it by
forming separatist communes. For them, Christians should never bear the secular
sword. In contrast, the Magisterial Reformers insisted that Christians should
be involved in the world. Since every believer is a “priest”, each person has
been called to serve God fully in their
secular work. But the secular sword should be distinguished from the spiritual
means by which the gospel should reach the world.
In the Reformation “two kingdoms”
theology, all of creation belongs to God but He rules the world with two different forms of government – the
earthly realm in which all people live is governed through law/reason and the
spiritual realm in which Christians are ruled by the gospel/special revelation.
There are different hands for different work. God uses social and political
institutions (“left hand”) to maintain order and peace, to punish wrongdoing
and promote the common good in society. He expands the spiritual kingdom through
preaching of the Word by the power of the Holy Spirit (“right hand”) to forgive
sins and nurture the church for good works. The two reigns of God have mutually
dependent but different tasks – the state needs the prayers and intercessions
of the church while the church needs the state to maintain social order so that
the gospel may preached without hindrance (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
Recent theologians who favor the “two
kingdoms” model look upon Christian attempts to ‘redeem society’ or ‘transform
the nation’ with deep suspicion. For example, David VanDrunen argues that the
normative standards for our cultural activities are, in general, “not distinctively Christian”. We expect the same
requirements of honesty, integrity and excellence from both Christian and
non-Christian parliamentarians. Car repair and dentistry are general human
activities rather than uniquely Christian ones. There is no ‘Christian politics’
any more than there is ‘Christian plumbing’.
VanDrunen recognizes that Scripture
tells us crucial things about the big picture of all human disciplines
(including public governance) and our motivation for doing them (out of love, faith
and obedience to God). But when it comes to the technical details of education,
engineering and business, there is plenty of room for liberty so we should not
impose unnecessary pressure on others to develop a ‘Christian’ way of carrying
out these activities. For example, our faith does not change how algebra is
taught. When it comes to public governance, the state should not intervene by
trying to change the doctrines and practices of the church for political mileage.
Neither should believers in government seek to legislate according to specific Christian
beliefs which others do not consider as authoritative, but according to natural
law, reason and shared ethics.
Applications in the Malaysian Context
How then shall we apply these insights
from the “two kingdoms” framework to our contemporary context in Malaysia ?
Firstly, our recognition of two
distinct kingdoms cautions us against triumphalism
and unrealistic expectations from our
efforts in social transformation. In the heat of a campaign, some believers may
be tempted to claim ‘divine inspiration’ that a predicted electoral victory for
their favored candidate to be a ‘miracle of God’. Sometimes, warfare language
may be employed to claim divine promise of deliverance in the midst of a ‘vast
army’ of political opponents. The “two kingdoms” model reminds us that politics
is a matter of the temporal, provisional and common kingdom shared by all. It
should not be exalted as a means for bringing the redemptive
Secondly, the “two kingdoms”
framework encourages persuasion using natural law, common ethics or reason in
our public discourse. This is possible since God’s moral law is universally
written in the hearts and conscience of humanity. We should not be surprised to
find non-believers displaying courage, integrity and compassion greater than
ours. In the temporal kingdom, we do not make our case by merely quoting Bible verses for support. In a pluralistic society,
we need to commend biblical values in an informed and winsome manner for the
common good of all citizens. Luther made an important distinction between a
person and her office in keeping with the law/gospel distinction. For example,
a Christian individual generally follows the Sermon on the Mount by forgiving
those who wrong her. But if she holds a public office as a judge, then she will
have to sentence a convicted criminal out of love for the wider community. In
her ‘official’ capacity, she carries out the mandate given to the state as part
of her vocation (the law) even though personally, she does not seek revenge but
forgives her enemies (the gospel).
Thirdly, the ‘two kingdoms’ model clarifies
that the main mandate of the church is to proclaim the gospel in word and deed.
The redemptive kingdom is uniquely established
through faithful ministry of the Word and the sacraments. It should not be
reduced to a passing ideological fad. While the church has an active and
prophetic role in society, her primary mission is not in the realm of law and
politics. Preachers should not be expected to pontificate on party
affiliations, voting strategies and details of public policy from the pulpit. Believers
may legitimately disagree about how to prioritize issues such as cost of
living, road congestion, taxes, tolls and economic stability when casting their
votes.
The real challenge comes when we
consider public policies which involve moral issues that are addressed by
Scripture such as corruption. In VanDrunen’s judgment, the church must teach
“all that the Scripture says about such topics as moral issues but should be silent about such topics as concrete political or public policy
issues.” For example, the Bible is clear that stealing and oppressing the
poor are grievous sins before God. When the preacher speaks out against such
practices, it would have concrete political implications. But believers must
make discretionary judgments in order to decide how to apply the clear teaching of Scripture to our particular situation.
Some Christians may refuse to vote for Barisan Nasional because of public
scandals involving government officials. Other believers may decide to vote for
the ruling coalition. Perhaps, there is no viable alternative on the ballot.
Perhaps, they discern a more effective approach to reform from within instead of a change in administration. Their
different judgments on how to combat corruption stem from the same commitment
to biblical teaching. One approach may be definitely wiser than the other, but
Scripture itself does not promote one side over the other as the Christian position. Neither should
we.
Concluding Remarks
Although there are precious
insights to be gleaned from the ‘two kingdoms’ model, critics have also pointed
out that it underestimates the impact of sin on society and put too much trust in
common grace to uphold the ‘secular’ function of the state. Our socio-political
structures are often not innocently neutral, but institutional embodiments of our
corporate idols – be it economic prosperity, ethnic supremacy or military
strength. These worldviews need to be challenged by the gospel of Christ’s
kingdom. For example, the ‘two kingdoms’ model was sometimes blamed for a form
of social quietism amongst German
Lutherans that allowed the Nazi movement to rise unchallenged in the 1930s.
Yes, the Bible is not a
comprehensive handbook for everything, but it does speak powerfully on a wide
range of economic, cultural and socio-political issues. Racial reconciliation
is a profoundly difficult and urgent task that confronts our nation after the 13th
general election. It presents the diverse Christian community in Malaysia
with an opportunity to demonstrate how the gospel transcends ethnic barriers the way it did for the early
church (Acts 13). Theologian Peter Rowans wrote, “In Malaysia, the church has the task of not only
proclaiming the message of reconciliation to all Malaysians, but of embodying
the concrete implications of that message in its community life, so that
Malaysians of all races and sections of the community can look at a local
church and see the gospel fleshed out in a racially reconciled group of people
who can work, worship and witness together.”[2]
Perhaps the most politically significant action we can take is to be
true to who are – as God’s reconciled and reconciling community bearing witness
to the Lordship of Christ in all of life by overcoming sectarian hatred and
ethnic distrust.
[1]
For more details, see Vaughan Roberts’ “God’s Big Picture” and Graeme
Goldsworthy’s “Gospel and Kingdom”
[2]
Reconciliation is a central theme in theology of mission. Check out Peter
Rowans’ “Proclaiming the Peacemaker: The Malaysian church as agent of
reconciliation in a multicultural society”.
Comments