White Horse Inn Blog

Know what you believe and why you believe it

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Two Kingdoms and Slavery

Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 453
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print
A few years ago I had the privilege of speaking at a conference on Karl Barth at Princeton Seminary.  In one unforgettable moment, George Harinck, history professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, explained the difference between the way members of his church (a confessionally conservative Reformed body) and the students of Barth responded to the Nazi occupation.  Consistent with the Barmen Declaration, the Barthians told Hitler to take his hands off of God’s church.  “But our church’s leaders,” related Harinck, “told Hitler to take his hands off of God’s world.”

Professor Harinck belongs to the Reformed Churches—Liberated, a continuing body of the denomination led by Abraham Kuyper.  This remark stayed with me and has haunted me as I try to think through the relationship of Christ and culture.  Where it has clear exegetical warrant, the church speaks authoritatively for God, in Christ’s name, to all of the principalities and powers in this present age.  Christ is Lord of all, not just the church, and his universal claims are to be proclaimed to the world as well as to be embraced and obeyed by those who are called by his name.

I was reminded of Harinck’s provocative comment while reading an interesting volley over the “spirituality of the church” in the blogosphere.  The concern was raised by someone I respect that this doctrine—more generally identified as “two kingdoms”—led to the toleration if not outright encouragement of slavery and segregation in the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS).

Like the “two kingdoms” distinction advanced by Luther and Calvin, the “spirituality of the church” refers to its distinct calling in the world.  When I affirm “two kingdoms,” I have in mind the Great Commission issued by our Lord, which mandates that the church preach his Word, administer the sacraments, and preserve the discipline and unity of the body through its officers.  As the Westminster Confession puts the matter, “Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate” (31.4).

According to the caricature at least, a “two kingdoms” view separates the believer’s life in the church from his or her life in the world.  Anthony Bradley is a conservative Reformed and African-American theologian. In his dialogue with Carl Trueman and others, he raised some pretty important questions about whether such a “dualistic” perspective was precisely what kept the Presbyterian Church in the South from opposing slavery and then segregation.

This is a hugely important issue, especially since the sins of our fathers are still with us and our own Reformed and Presbyterian denominations do not seem yet to reflect the diversity that anticipates the worshipping throng in Revelation 5:9.

So I’ll offer a few brief comments as a pushback to this charge.

First, it is implausible to suggest that the “spirituality of the church” (or “two kingdoms”) was the glue that held together the southern Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches in their common defense of slavery.  Slavery held them together.  Their views on the matter were argued on the basis of racist doctrines and tortured appeals to slavery in biblical times, as if it were anything like modern slavery that depended on kidnapping, murder, theft, and numerous other sins identified in Scripture as capital offenses.

Second, even if we could accept the caricature of the “spirituality” or “two kingdoms” approach as dualistic, this would only mean that the church refused to address the evil because it was a political matter.  In actual fact, though, the church itself was segregated—often more so than society at large.

Third, Southern Presbyterian theologians who labored indefatigably to defend slavery may have cloaked some of their arguments in appeals to the church’s spiritual mission, but they were calling the state to perpetuate the institution from the pulpit and classroom lectern.  I have in mind especially R. L. Dabney and James Henley Thornwell, who based their arguments on a vision of a Christian society that would make the South the envy of the world and enemy of revolutionaries everywhere.   Their arguments for slavery were not based on the spirituality of the church (I’m not even sure how they could be) but on racist dogmas, Scripture twisting, and wicked cultural prejudices that vitiated the gospel.  Charles Hodge was exactly right when he said that Thornwell was using the spirituality of the church as a cover for his errors.  Assimilating Christ to culture is the sort of thing that the spirituality of the church is especially designed to guard against.

Fourth, it is “guilt-by-association” to argue that because such views on slavery and race were held by people who also spoke of the “spirituality of the church,” the latter view is implicated.  One has to show that the doctrine actually supported racism.  Yet it is very easy to argue that the theological architects of apartheid in South Africa thought they were implementing the transformative vision of Abraham Kuyper.  In fact, they had some support for it in Kuyper’s own writings.  When South Africa’s largest Reformed body confessed apartheid to be heresy, the explanation of its development was linked directly to the Kuyperian movement.  In his biography of Kuyper, James Bratt relates that the Dutch leader did not favor the emerging Afrikaner nationalism.  Nevertheless, many of his ideas were applied:
Key leaders in the Reformed churches in South Africa would work their way to Amesterdam to study at the Free University, and they would have considerable impact in shaping Afrikaner thought and identity in the 1920s and 1930s. They magnified the suggestion Kuyper had taken up from S. J. Du Toit that Afrikaners had a holy calling in their land. They savored the biblical warrant that Kuyper gave to the pluriformity of human cultures, giving the Tower of Babel episode normative status for human history and interrelationships. Most crucially, they adapted philosopher H. J. Stoker's addition of the volk to the sovereign 'spheres' ordained of God. With that, Romantic sociology and European racism received a warrant beyond appeal--and quite beyond what Kuyper had accorded them. The results were startling: a system of separate organization based on race instead of religious confession....

This was a radical reversal of the inter-racial Reformed churches and missions that went all the way back to the time of the Synod of Dort (Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat [Eerdmans, 2013], 295-96).

So, from a “two kingdoms” perspective, Southern Presbyterians like Dabney and Thornwell and the Afrikaner architects of apartheid were driven by cultural prejudice over Scripture and by a vision of creating a “Christian” (code for “white”) culture.  Any view of the relation between Christ and culture can be abused—including a “two kingdoms” approach.  It would be easier to blame our tradition’s complicity with social sin on a group or party that held a particular doctrine.  But the issue here is racism, pure and simple.  And it is still with us.

Now let’s imagine ourselves back in the 1850s.  What would a “two kingdoms” or “spirituality of the church” doctrine lead one to do?

First, it would lead the church to exercise its spiritual function—specifically, the ministry of the keys (opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven in Christ’s name).

This would be done by preaching the whole counsel of God, including his wrath against the sin of slavery.  There is no Christian liberty to disobey God’s commands and he has commanded clearly that he hates kidnapping, theft, and murder—sins on which the modern slave trade and slave-holding thrived.  Even Christian families were separated from each other for the economic gain of white Christians.  There is no comparison between this form of slavery and the largely debt-based indentured servitude of ancient societies.

Further exercising the keys, churches committed to the spirituality doctrine would have disciplined members and especially officers who held slaves or shared in the traffic of slaves.  It would have been as natural for a church embracing its spiritual mission to do this as it would have been in the case of members and officers participating in a chain of whorehouses.  After the customary steps, the discipline would take the form of excommunication for the unrepentant.  Dr. Dabney was held in high esteem after the Civil War as a minister and professor, as he continued to defend slavery as an honorable institution.  What would have happened if the church had in fact exercised its spiritual vocation?

Second, there is nothing in the “two kingdoms” or “spirituality” doctrine to keep the church from declaring to the civil powers directly what it proclaims to the world from the pulpit.

Recall the judicious language of the Confession above: “…unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.”  It is hard to conceive of a greater example of a “case extraordinary.”  Today denominations offer solemn declarations on all sorts of matters that are not addressed in Scripture and should, therefore, be left to Christian liberty.  The church has no authority to determine the details of public policy, but it does have the authority—indeed, the obligation—to declare God’s condemnation of public as well as private sin.

Third, the church is not only the people of God gathered, but the people of God scattered into the world as parents, children, neighbors, and citizens.

Imagine what might have happened if the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) had fulfilled its spiritual mandate in the first two ways I’ve mentioned.  Wouldn’t the members be shaped by God’s Word and Spirit to oppose such a horrific evil?   And wouldn’t they do so not only in their extended families but in their towns and cities?  Wouldn’t they carry their convictions to the voting booth as loyal citizens?  Some would even do so as judges, legislators, and generals.  What if the church that nurtured R. L. Dabney had denounced slavery with one voice, with all of the spiritual authority in heaven behind it?  Would he have become a notorious defender of racist religion as he preached, wrote, and served as chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson?

Some Southern Presbyterians who held a “spirituality” view (such as B. B. Warfield’s father and grandfather) did oppose slavery on theological grounds.  In fact, his maternal grandfather did so as chairman of the Republican Convention that re-elected Abraham Lincoln, in opposition to his nephew, former Vice President of the United States and a Confederate general.  B. B. Warfield himself shared his father’s pro-abolition and “two kingdom” views and, at the turn of the twentieth century, wrote one of the most moving pleas for integration.  What if the church had been unified on the Word of God touching this crucial matter?

So to return to Professor Harinck’s arresting point:  Anyone who affirms the “two kingdoms” acknowledges Christ as the Lord of both.  Even through pagan rulers, Christ exercises his worldwide dominion.  We tell the principalities and powers not only that the church belongs to Christ, but that ultimately the world belongs to him as well and will not tolerate indefinitely the injustices of this age.  We address Caesar with confidence where the one greater than Caesar has spoken.  And yet addressing the magistrate in his or her public office can be done only “in cases extraordinary,” and “by humble petition.”  In any case, we encourage Caesar in his defense of justice and punishment of evil-doers.  More than this, we announce a law to which everyone is bound and a gospel by which even Neros may be reconciled to God and those they’ve offended.

To lodge the authority of the church in the mission that Jesus assigned to it seems restrictive and ineffective in transforming the world only if we forget that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.  Are the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline inconsequential in this great battle between the powers of this present evil age and the reign of Christ?  Or are churches powerless against the evil one precisely to the extent that they fail to fulfill their sacred mission?  The history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and the racisms that still haunt our society teach us just how sorely we need the state and the church to carry out their distinct but often cobelligerent callings—the one as God’s minister of temporal justice and the latter as the ministry of everlasting life.

Overall Rating (0)

0 out of 5 stars

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.

People in this conversation

Load Previous Comments
  • "Darrell, since Calvin explicitly defended the “two kingdoms” concept, and did so in direct opposition to Anabaptist as well as Roman views on the matter, it is difficult to know how the concept itself–with a long Reformed pedigree and clearly attested by Jesus and the apostles is “neo-Anabaptist.” I’m even convinced that Kuyper’s “sphere-sovereignty” is closer to “two kingdoms” than many today who claim his mantle. In any case, to suggest that it is an error that the church cannot tolerate is either to misunderstand the position or the history of Reformed thinking on the subject, or both." MH

    Dr. Horton,
    You really didn't address what Darrell noted. We can't broad brush Two-Kingdom terminology as though it is a monolithic movement. And that is what your comment does above. The Modern Two Kingdom paradigm does not appear to line up with Calvin's thought or the way we use the terminology in the RPCNA. Two Kingdom (or two fold Government under Christ) has many variations now day. The responsibilities to whom they are responsible to and their points of reference from where their authority is derived from have theologians scratching their heads today as some are forming new points or redefined points of reference. You can not broad brush with the term Two Kingdoms. That is why people are making the distinction of E2K, Radical Two Kingdom, etc. When a Pastor is chided for going to pray at a city counsel meeting upon invite there is something amiss. I know Pastors who have accepted the invitations and some who have been accused of confusing the Kingdoms because they did accept the invites. As I am trying to note you can not broad brush the Two Kindom doctrine as though it is monolithic. There are advocates of the Modern paradigm of Two Kingdom Theology that are more anabaptistic then they are historically Reformed. And some of those people are closely associated with you if I am not mistaken.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • [...] and lack of support for integration.  Michael Horton responded with an article entitled Two Kingdoms and Slavery, in which he contends that the theonomy (not R2K) of many Southern Presbyterians underlay [...]

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Stanley Mills

    1.) A church member could advocate for same sex civil unions based on neighbor love and that would be no reason for the Church to invoke discipline.

    2.) A church member could advocated for the revocation of bestiality laws (per Rev. Bordow of Escondido pedigree) and that would be no reason for the Church to invoke discipline.

    3.) BUT let a church member advocate for racial realism (and let's be honest here ... said church member would have to be white because if a non white advocated for racial realism no one would say "boo.") and the consequences are immediate excommunication.

    So, a Christian non practicing homosexual would be embraced for their pro civil unions advocacy in the Church but a Thornwell and a Dabney would be excommunicated.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Stanley,
    There is a significant difference between advocating a societal recognition of equality for gays and a societal recognition for racism and slavery. Certainly, homosexuality along with racism and slavery are serious sins and their practice in the Church cannot be tolerated. But the NT recognizes a space in society for those whose behaviors and beliefs disqualify them from being in good standing in the church. But racism and slavery are sins that cannot be tolerated in society because they are abusive and heavily deny the equality of people. We will never know the harm we do to the Gospel when our actions or endorsements associate the victimizing of others with the Gospel.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Stanley, remember that Curt is a Marxist and Marxism has no issue with sexual perversion but does see ethnic identity as a roadblock to the Marxist utopia. Notice that Curt refers to things as sins which are not sins in the Bible, but are sins to the Marcist dogma. That is the explanation to the apparent double standard. Recognition of sexual perversion serves the god of Equality, but Biblical racial identity does not.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Stanley Mills


    People are not equal in the Marxist informed way you are using that word. Only a Marxist believes that tripe.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Stanley,
    I think it would be more productive to respond to what people write rather than to the labels that others give them. This is especially true when the others are antagonists who thrive on monolithic definitions of groups and discard accuracy.

    BTW, my belief in the equality of all people comes from my reading of the Bible.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Guest - Darrell Todd Maurina

    It's been a while since I've heard terms like "racial realism." I thought language like that had pretty much died out long ago.

    But okay, let's discuss racial realism. Some things look more "real" than others, depending on whether one is looking at an ethnic group from inside or outside.

    Let's discuss how large numbers of people in China, Korea, Japan, Singapore, and other high-performing Asian nations think about Westerners, and how many think a realistic view of Westerners is that we are grossly immoral people who can't keep our families together and that this stems from a basic inability to be disciplined and accept authority. In the view of a lot of Asians, the West is a dying culture because we don't value personal self-discipline, don't accept external authority, don't value parents and older people, and disrespect education.

    But it isn't just non-Christians in Asia who think that way.

    I think Dr. Horton could probably say quite a bit about why both Westminster-East and Westminster-West have a huge percentage of Asian students. Based on raw numbers of present membership and the crystal-clear indicators of future growth, it seems pretty obvious that while Presbyterianism has virtually died out in the West, its main growth areas are in Asia.

    Some very similar things could be said about Anglicanism in Africa.

    So does that mean that Anglicanism is well-adapted to the African mind, especially Nigeria, and Presbyterianism is properly an Asian religion, particularly Korean?

    Such would be logical consequences of a "race-realist" approach to modern church life, and that has been a trend for half a century which shows every indication of not only continuing but increasing.

    It's pretty hard to argue that we in the West haven't given a lot of reasons for people with yellow and black skin to think very bad things about the decline of Western society.

    Don't get me wrong -- I am painfully aware of the problems of the Asian church. It takes many generations to Christianize a culture, not just a couple of decades, and Asian church life is full of problems. The same could easily be said for African church life.

    But at least African Anglicans and Asian Presbyterians are not lapsing into outright heresy and gross immorality the way the Western church has done, and continues to do at an accelerating rate.

    If we're really going to be "realistic" about race, we're going to end up in some very uncomfortable places.

    Maybe that's because God cares very little about skin color, but cares a great deal about faithfulness to His Word. God will bless people who follow him and curse those who reject him.

    Right now we're doing a pretty good job of rejecting him in America, and Europe pretty much finished that job a generation or two ago. Since Christ cannot be a king without subjects, he's perfectly capable of raising up other people to replace those who are rejecting Him.

    So let's cut the talk about racism. A Nigerian Anglican bishop and a Korean Presbyterian pastor both have very good reason to say very bad things about American church life, and skin color doesn't have one thing to do with it.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • Darrell,
    Looking at Nathaniel's website, the key problem is in the conjunction he uses. That conjunction is "and." "Faith And Heritage" is the name of his site. And yet, the Reformed view of faith declares, "sola fide." When a conjunction is added to faith, then what follows competes with Christ. And that reminds me of another Reformed phrase, "solus Christus."

    In his book, A Theology Of The Holy Spirit, Frederick Dale Bruner notes that whatever we add to faith and to Christ soon becomes the new center of our beliefs and lives. Either our merit comes from Christ alone or we find ourselves short of merit points.

    And thank you for pointing out why we need to cut the talk on racism.

    Like 0 Short URL:
  • [...] is secretly tolerated in some of our churches.  Michael Horton, of Westminster Seminary West, wrote a blog post addressing the racism of theologian R L Dabney, and other Christian slave-owners from the south. [...]

    Like 0 Short URL: