Comments on: Two Kingdoms Theory and Ken Myers

By: James Grant

James Grant — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:22:03 +0000

Fair enough, but I think there was some confusion on the matter, especially considering a few comments.

By: Bryant

Bryant — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:01:28 +0000

How about settling in the middle,
Christian reconstructionism anybody

By: Hunter Baker

Hunter Baker — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:25:34 +0000

I think it is clear from the transcription that he is speaking in the way you suggest. I’m taking issue with the statement more than with Ken Myers, which is why I talk about not being pugnacious.

By: Ken Myers on the “Two-Kingdom” Social Theory » Evangel | A First Things Blog

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:37:09 +0000

[...] (3)Andy: I still think Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged (from Nat’l Review, Dec… Two Kingdoms Theory and Ken Myers (7)James Grant: Hunter, Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I am the… Questions about [...]

By: James Grant

James Grant — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:10:48 +0000

Hunter,

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I am the one who transcribed this from the interview. Myers isn’t necessarily saying this. He is responding to the other position and assuming it for the sake of argument. I think you need to clarify this. The title of your post and the way you address it seems to imply this is Myers position. It isn’t.

James Grant

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:32:46 +0000

Here is an interesting article titled "“I'm Not a Social Reformer, I'm Here to Preach the Gospel."

By: K. D. Kennedy

K. D. Kennedy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:02:20 +0000

Is Myers saying that there is not a distinctively Christian way of doing X, or is he saying there is not ONLY ONE WAY of doing X in a distinctively Christian way?

In this present world, because Christians cannot perfectly mirror Christ, Christians can be, or aim to be, distinctively Christian in their approach to X, yet still arrive at differing political, legal, social, economic, etc., opinions.

In other words, Christians may agree on the fundamental Gospel injunction to care for the poor, but is it not possible to concede that two Christians — working from similar distinctively Christian principles — might disagree on how to accomplish that?

There is merit in acknowledging that foundational Christian principles exist by which Christians can work out ‘distinctively Christian’ positions and ways of living, while recognizing that some times these ways of thinking and acting coincide with the opinions and ways of non-Christians. Natural law and Myers’ formulation of humanism are fundamentally Christian, in that they adhere to God’s purposes for Creation.

Now if only Christians could agree on what the foundational Christian principles are.

By: Anthony Mator

Anthony Mator — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:53:48 +0000

I completely agree with Coyle.

It is unusual that I ever completely agree with anyone.

By: Coyle

Coyle — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:51:59 +0000

Hmm… tough issue to tackle. I would throw out for consideration that instead of thinking of Christian politics as “a distinct thing”, it might be more useful to think of Christians as having distinct ideas of sin and grace, which have political implications.
That is, we can rightly condemn (as you point out) the exposure of infants, and even work to change laws or customs that permit practices like this, but do so from the perspective of the Gospel, rather than from a systematic political theory. Thinking about politics this way allows us to be good citizens in whatever society God has placed us, and helps us avoid confusing the things of God and the things of Caesar. It also keeps us from the trap of identifying Christianity too closely with a particular form of government or a particular political movement…

By: Anthony Mator

Anthony Mator — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:23:41 +0000

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Myers is both right and wrong.

Yes, there is a distinctively human view, if by that we can intend to mean that Christ is the template for the distinctively human person who is being what a human was intended to be.

By: Frank Turk

Frank Turk — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:22:43 +0000

There is a third way between “Theonomy” and “Two Kingdoms”, and it is the Gospel. As we say in my little camp, “The Gospel is the Solution to Culture.”

Before spelling that out, I’ll let someone else take a stab at it.