Christian Schools & the Two-Kingdom Doctrine

[Casey]

I've been trying to think through the practical application of the two-kingdoms doctrine and a few questions popped up in my mind on account of some recent reading. For those on the forum who hold to the two-kingdom doctrine:

1. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a "Christian school"?

2. Do you believe that history of religions ought to be taught in a university setting rather than Christian theology?

I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this. Thanks.

 

[ChristianTrader]

I've been trying to think through the practical application of the two-kingdoms doctrine and a few questions popped up in my mind on account of some recent reading. For those on the forum who hold to the two-kingdom doctrine:

1. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a "Christian school"?

2. Do you believe that history of religions ought to be taught in a university setting rather than Christian theology?

I'm interested in hearing your perspective on this. Thanks.

1)I would think that there would not be a Christian vs. a non Christian school but instead, school done correctly vs. school done incorrectly.

2)I would not think of it as an either or situation but instead a this is what incorrect thought has done over the years, while Christian thought and theology is the only thing to which right reason leads.

CT

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I agree with Hermonta that the dichotomy should not be Christian vs. Pagan but God-honoring vs. God-denying. I am not in favor of a pluralistic school system in any manner and especially one run by a pluralistic state that refuses to recognize Christ as King and Lord. As Christians we should not be complacent in our defense of the crown rights. in any arena especially when it comes to the education of our covenant children.

 

[Casey]

1)I would think that there would not be a Christian vs. a non Christian school but instead, school done correctly vs. school done incorrectly.

2)I would not think of it as an either or situation but instead a this is what incorrect thought has done over the years, while Christian thought and theology is the only thing to which right reason leads.

CT

Thanks for responding. I'm still a little unclear . . .

In a "school done correctly," it would include Christian theology? And since there is no "Christian vs. non Christian school" distinction, would public schools be most "correctly" done if they include, or not include, Christian theology?

What determines the "correctness" of how school is done? If the civil kingdom is governed by natural law, is the institution of the "school" likewise only governed by natural law? Or is "school" something that fits in the spiritual kingdom?

 

[Guido's Brother]

Did your recent reading happen to include D.G. Hart's The Lost Soul of American Protestantism? He discusses these things to some degree.

 

[ChristianTrader]

1)I would think that there would not be a Christian vs. a non Christian school but instead, school done correctly vs. school done incorrectly.

2)I would not think of it as an either or situation but instead a this is what incorrect thought has done over the years, while Christian thought and theology is the only thing to which right reason leads.

CT

Thanks for responding. I'm still a little unclear . . .

In a "school done correctly," it would include Christian theology? And since there is no "Christian vs. non Christian school" distinction, would public schools be most "correctly" done if they include, or not include, Christian theology?

They would have to include it or exclude it while including something contrary to it. Christian Theology is not something one can be neutral towards.

What determines the "correctness" of how school is done? If the civil kingdom is governed by natural law, is the institution of the "school" likewise only governed by natural law? Or is "school" something that fits in the spiritual kingdom?

It would be governed by natural law. I, however think that one can get more out of natural law than most people think.

CT

 

[Casey]

Did your recent reading happen to include D.G. Hart's The Lost Soul of American Protestantism? He discusses these things to some degree.

I haven't read that book though I'd like to get it -- perhaps you could summarize some of what Hart said?

Actually, I've been reading Bavinck vol. 1: Prolegomena. He was talking about how German liberalism encouraged the idea of distinguishing between the (state) university, built on the foundation of science, thus leading to a (supposedly unbiased) history of religions approach; in contrast to the church, built on the foundation of faith, which may teach dogmatics.

This dualism seems strangely reminiscent of the dualism in the two-kingdoms doctrine, where the civil kingdom is based on natural law (I know it's not the equivalent of "science," but it has a certain affinity in terms of being independent from special revelation and built on natural revelation). The thought of the liberals was to keep dogmatics/theology taught as truth in the confines of the church/seminary. The university would be governed by a different "standard" than faith.

Then the thought struck me that maybe there is a link between the two-kingdoms doctrine (a Lutheran doctrine) and the rise of liberalism's distinction between science and faith as being different sources of knowledge, and German liberalism of course came from Germany where Lutheran thought was common.

Of course I'm just thinking out loud. Thoughts?

 

[mvdm]

Casey, are you looking for thoughts/feedback from *only* those who hold to the 2 kingdom theory? Or do you also want feedback from those who don't subscribe to it in every respect? Your original post reads as if it was inviting thoughts from 2 kingdom adherents only.

 

[Casey]

Oh, sorry -- everyone is welcome to respond.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

While Wikipedia should never be a scholarly source of information it is interesting that whoever edited the page on the two-kingdoms doctrine has a quotation from Calvin, though he/she does not give a citation.

 

[Poimen]

Benjamin:

See Institutes 3.19.15

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Benjamin:

See Institutes 3.19.15

Thanks, take a look at Book IV, Chapter 10, Sect. 1-5 as well.

 

[mvdm]

I read Calvin as building a firewall against the encroachment of the secular state over against the church.

I read Casey's question as addressing it from the other direction, i.e., how does the kingdom of God plays out into the civil life of this world. He asks about it in terms of education in particular. It seems how you answer would be affected by whether one has an overrealized or underrealized eschatology. Many in the modern 2 kingdom camp hermetically seal the church from all discussion of education and politics, turning the kingdom of God into an exclusively spiritual and soteriological matter. I would suspect holding to a strict 2 kingdom theory could lead one to argue that there is no such thing as a Christian school---that the only thing that can be called "Christian" is the individual in the context of the church.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Benjamin:

See Institutes 3.19.15

Thanks, take a look at Book IV, Chapter 10, Sect. 1-5 as well.

What I take away from Calvin is that the commandments of men, whether from magistrates or prelates, have no binding authority over the conscience of men. It is only the Law of God by the power of the Spirit that can bind the conscience of a Christian. He distinguishes "between the judgment-seat of God and the terrestrial justice of men."

If this is the essence of Calvin’s two-kingdom view, how does that help answer the OP?

 

[Poimen]

The two kingdom theory protects the church from becoming something other than a spiritual institution and, as such, it should not presume to interfere in areas that are not appointed to its authority.

As an admirer of Kuyper however I would want to keep church and school distinct. The first is under the rule of elders, the second under the rule of parents. Perhaps that would put me in conflict with the two kingdom view but I don't see (at this time) that is does. Thus the school is Christian not because of its direct association with the church but because of its direct association with Christian families.

I would also state that in the Christian school history of religion should be taught. I would not be opposed to having it taught in the church as well since it is mainly an apologetic enterprise.

 

[Casey]

Do you believe a university is also to be under the rule of parents? I'm not talking about K-12, per se. What about a seminary that is not officially linked to the oversight of a church/denomination? Should history of religions be taught in these contexts too since they are not the church?

 

[Poimen]

No not necessarily. By that time the child is or should be mature enough to be educated by their own means and choices.

History of religions is not necessarily a Christian enterprise so I don't see a problem with anyone teaching it. However if it is done in the church or the Christian school I would expect that it would come with a Christian perspective.