Establishing the Boundaries of a Biblical Worldview

R2K

Since the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life, it follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavour to bring all human society social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into the obedience to its law of righteousness. It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. . . .”[1]

Footnotes    (↵back returns to text)
  1. A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth [1890] 1976), p. 283.↵back

It is fascinating to operate in two “worlds” — one of the pragmatic business world, and the other the highly theoretical and philosophical world of ecclesiastical polity and theory.

Trying to get a business man to operate in terms of principles can be a challenging exercise at the best of times. But the businessman is a success to the extent that he provides good product and service, plans and manages the business, and treats his employees with some kind of professionalism. Planning, means setting future goals, then working towards them. It also means holding employees accountable in some form to the plan, or at least holding them accountable to the portion of the plan for which they are responsible.

But the frustration is equalled by trying to get church leaders to operate like businessmen and put plans into place then work the plan. Instead, you get words like this: “We have plans but we don’t make them public. That’s the way of the world. We’re spiritual over here, and God will bless our spirituality.”

Continue reading

One of the issues in Christian debate is R2K. This is “Radical Two-Kingdom” theology – church and state. R2K stands for the idea that the realm of the church is to be governed by the Law of God in Scripture, while the state is only to be governed by “natural” law, not Scripture.

The mistake of this view is obvious. It’s origins are in neoplatonism’s notion of the dichotomy between spirit and matter. But what is not so obvious is that the common response to R2K also contains its own error. The respondents to R2K theology call for functional separation of church and state, but both are under God’s law. While that sounds good and proper, the error is this.

Continue reading

It is fascinating to operate in two “worlds” — one of the pragmatic business world, and the other the highly theoretical and philosophical world of ecclesiastical polity and theory.

Trying to get a business man to operate in terms of principles can be a challenging exercise at the best of times. But the businessman is a success to the extent that he provides good product and service, plans and manages the business, and treats his employees with some kind of professionalism. Planning, means setting future goals, then working towards them. It also means holding employees accountable in some form to the plan, or at least holding them accountable to the portion of the plan for which they are responsible.

But the frustration is equalled by trying to get church leaders to operate like businessmen and put plans into place then work the plan. Instead, you get words like this: “We have plans but we don’t make them public. That’s the way of the world. We’re spiritual over here, and God will bless our spirituality.”

Continue reading

One of the issues in Christian debate is R2K. This is “Radical Two-Kingdom” theology – church and state. R2K stands for the idea that the realm of the church is to be governed by the Law of God in Scripture, while the state is only to be governed by “natural” law, not Scripture.

The mistake of this view is obvious. It’s origins are in neoplatonism’s notion of the dichotomy between spirit and matter. But what is not so obvious is that the common response to R2K also contains its own error. The respondents to R2K theology call for functional separation of church and state, but both are under God’s law. While that sounds good and proper, the error is this.

Continue reading