Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California, has some impressive theologians–Michael Horton, David Van Drunen, and other Calvinists of the sort who appear on White Horse Inn. I know some of these guys, think highly of them, and appreciate how some of them are being influenced by Luther and Lutheran theology. But though they speak of the distinction between Law and Gospel, have a stronger influence on the Sacraments, and teach about vocation, they are still Calvinists and their use of Luther is still within a Calvinist context.
A controversy has broken out in Reformed circles about the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, as formulated by these Escondido theologians, particularly David Van Drunen in his book Living in Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision of Christ and Culture. He is developing an alternative to the “one kingdom” model of the Dominionists and to the Abraham Kuyper’s “neocalvinism” with its notion of “sphere sovereignty” over every dimension of life.
This is a worthy project, but Van Drunen’s version of the Two Kingdoms is NOT the same as the Lutheran view. Yet the two are being confused. As other Reformed theologians push back against this so-called “Escondido theology,” they are saying that Van Drunen’s view is the official position of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I’ve heard that Dr. Van Drunen’s book is being taught in courses on Lutheran theology. And, to top it off, I’m told that I am even mentioned in at least one book on the subject as advocating this Escondido theology!
At that Two Kingdoms conference I participated in, Jordan Cooper gave an important presentation entitled “Escondido Theology: An Evaluation and Critique.”
After the jump, I’ll sum up some of the differences and post the video of Jordan’s presentation.
The Escondido theologians, Calvinists that they are, develop their view in terms of covenant theology. They distinguish between the Noahic covenant after the flood, which applies to the whole human race, and the covenants of salvation. They also work with the distinction between “common grace”–God’s kindness to his whole creation–and “particular grace,” the saving grace that applies only to the elect. As a result, the Escondido version tends to see the Kingdom of the Left as the realm of the lost, with the Kingdom of the Right referring to the church.
Luther’s view, in contrast, derives from the distinction between Law and Gospel. He also speaks of the distinction between God’s temporal kingdom and His eternal kingdom, the realm of His physical creation and the realm of His spiritual redemption.
Thus, God’s moral law is applicable to the secular sphere, while Christians, strictly speaking, are governed solely by the Gospel. The visible church, as a temporal, physical institution, is part of the Kingdom of the Left–subject to ethical standards, the laws of the state, and the operations of reason–while the invisible church is kept by God forever. The Lutheran view sees the Kingdom of the Left as a good place, where God is present–in vocation, for one thing–and where He is hidden, being revealed only in His spiritual kingdom by His word.
The Escondido version, by contrast, is mostly negative towards the Kingdom of the Left. Yes, Christians must live out their faith in this hostile environment, but the church itself has little to do with the world. It has no agenda to try to improve the culture. Some go so far as to say that good works done by the church–as opposed to those by individual Christians–(for example, disaster relief and other works of mercy) should be for the benefit of other Christians, rather than the world outside.
The upshot is that the Escondido theology of the two kingdoms is essentially dualistic, whereas the Lutheran theology brings the two very different realms of existence together, insofar as they are ruled by the same King, who governs them in different ways. Calvinism teaches the doctrine of the limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect, so that everyone is separated into absolute categories of the saved and the lost. But because Lutherans believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, the whole world, even in its secularity, is a domain for Christians, who participate in God’s providential care as they love and serve their neighbors in their vocations.
This is my take on the major differences, though I might be missing something. But listen to Jordan’s presentation for the details.
Source: A Critique of Escondido Two Kingdom Theology
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV3fWC29hdI?feature=oembed&w=500&h=281]
