14 comments

1. I view J.P. as responding to the false and dangerous examples presented in Mr. Gordon’s article, as well as to the evident political opportunism and exploitation it reflects. I do not see how the two-sphere argument applies to this matter. The spiritual and political have become intertwined, and the result is peculiar—a kind of free-for-all.
   Today, 20 to 30 million people can watch events where God’s presence is invoked by ordained ministers, and civil magistrates are preaching the gospel. The viewer is left to assume that this represents the true view of Christianity. I am reminded of the Social Gospel movement in the early and mid-20th century, followed by Black Liberation Theology and even the feminist movement—all invoking the idea that the Sermon on the Mount proves the kingdom of God is not merely spiritual but also a social reality in which the poor, the meek, and the peacemakers are blessed.
   This situation, however, is worse. We now seek to coerce the nation, in the name of Christianity, to “be good”—and to “be good” is equated with being a conservative Republican. We trust that the saints have heard the Shepherd’s voice and will continue to hear it, regardless of the day, time, or setting in which it is proclaimed. Yet we must respond whenever the gospel message is distorted, whether in the Church or in the State.
   I thoroughly agree with the two-sphere doctrine. However, it is becoming more difficult to follow Calvins counsel; “to turn aside the mind from thinking about the other.” INSTITUTES 3.19.15

   Reply ↓

   • Michael,

     The two-sphere distinction is entirely apropos of this discussion.

     If the memorial is a non-ecclesiastical event, a family event (albeit a large and public one), then if they choose to use that event to address culture and even politics, that all falls under the secular sphere. There is a considerable degree of liberty there.

     It’s the spirituality of the visible church that we must protect. The stuff that went on at the memorial wouldn’t be appropriate in a stated worship service. Why not? Because it represents the sacred sphere.

     Yes, when Christians hold public events and speak incorrectly, there is a cost. We might have to speak to some errors that were articulated but those errors don’t mean that the distinction is either invalid or irrelevant.

     I share your concerns about the left-wing and right-social social gospel. I’ve tried to address both on the HB.

     e.g., Resources On The Social Gospel And Social Justice

     Who are “we”? I’m not trying to coerce anyone to do anything?

     Are Christian Nationalists seeking to coerce people? Well, the advocate that it should be done. Again, because they don’t know how to distinguish between the two spheres.

     E.g., Resources On The Twofold Kingdom

     and

     Resources On Christian Nationalism

     The distinction between two spheres of the twofold kingdom has always been hard to follow. That’s life in the in the time in between Christ’s ascension and return.

     Reply ↓

   • “The spiritual and political have become intertwined” they have indeed, with the blessing of the church. Reformed churches are also affected. I have personally heard it.

     Reply ↓

2. “What we are seeing is something very different: the platforming of MANY false teachers, and false religions alongside political leaders, all in the name of spiritual revival and national restoration. This is not the church speaking truth to power—this is the church aligning with power for the sake of influence. . . . It brings politicians and pastors on the same stage, uses patriotic emotion as religious fervor, and speaks of “saving the nation” as if that were the mission of the church. But yet it platforms prosperity theology, false prophecy, New Apostolic Reformation doctrines, ecumenical compromise, and man-centered worship. These are not minor disagreements—they are violations of the gospel itself.”

   It seems clear to me that Jp understands the two sphere argument.

   Reply ↓

   • Michael,

     Christians speaking at a political rally or even a memorial does not constitute “the church” doing anything. When pastors and elders, in their office, substitute partisan politics for their official ministry and message, that’s a grave confusion but Christians speaking at non-ecclesiastical events about their views is unobjectionable.

     We Christians live and function in two spheres. A political/cultural rally or even a memorial, which is half-rally/half-memorial, belongs to one sphere and the official ministry of the church to the other.

     I’m sure that many who spoke at the memorial have no idea of this distinction but the use of religious language, prayers, etc doesn’t make an event ecclesiastical.

     I’m not defending everything that was said at the memorial or even who spoke but a memorial is a family event, not an ecclesiastical service. Within the confines of the moral law, people may do what they will.

     In an ecclesiastical service, the church is obligated to abide by the rule of worship and participation is much more strictly limited. It’s one thing to have Sec Rubio speak at the memorial and it would be another thing to have him or a sitting president or some other politician, speak at a church during a service. That would be a confusion of the two spheres.

     Reply ↓

     • And it finds its way into the worship service, be that during prayer or during the sermon, or during announcements.

       Reply ↓

     • Would you agree that the lines are intentionally blurred when Christians speak at these events “as a pastor” or “as a Christian elder”. If they were speaking as an individual, I would agree with you it’s a non issue, but when these men open by invoking their role and so-called authority as being a pastor it does transform the message spoken.

       Reply ↓

       • Yes, I agree that when ministers use their office to leverage a partisan political message or move, that blurs lines and creates confusion.

         Reply ↓

3. Great dialogue. Thank you both.

   Reply ↓

4. Does anyone else struggle with the concept of God using ungodly men to further His kingdom? Especially when this man is venerated in the church community? This is a struggle for me. I feel that I’m in a Jonah moment.

   Reply ↓

   • JP,

     This is where it is so important to distinguish between the two spheres of Christ’s kingdom, the sacred and the secular. The sacred is Christ’s kingdom proper. It is extended only by the divinely ordained means of grace.

     The secular is also an aspect of the kingdom, but it is the general, or the common, and not the sacred or saving. If we think of Kirk’s political/cultural work as secular, rather than sacred, that relieves some of the tension or alleviates the problem. The secular or common sphere includes pagans and Christians and it touches the temporal, not the eternal.

     Reply ↓

     • This articulates my concerns very well.

       Churches are joining hands in a political movement.

       “Doctrine divides. Mission unites.”

       “We all love Jesus, let’s not argue.”

       This is spiritual ecumenism happening on a massive scale

       The world is craving unity and is willing to sacrifice Biblical truth for it.

       “Forget doctrine.
       Forget differences.
       Just unite for the greater good.”

       Revelation 13 shows a political figure—the Beast—and alongside him a religious figure—the False Prophet—who performs signs, uses spiritual language, and leads the world to worship the political power.

       Revelation 17 shows a false religious system pictured as a harlot. She is rich, attractive, influential. Yet she is spiritually unfaithful, committing “fornication” with the kings of the earth—meaning she willingly compromises truth to merge with political powers to gain influence. She “rides the Beast,” symbolizing that false religion and political power will become partners. This global religious system will dominate the nations. And finally, Revelation 19 says Christ returns and judges it.

       This does not happen after Christ comes—it happens before He returns.

       For the first time in history, we are witnessing a powerful effort to merge Christianity with political ambition on a massive scale. Not simply Christians being involved in politics—that is right and good.

       What we are seeing is something very different: the platforming of MANY false teachers, and false religions alongside political leaders, all in the name of spiritual revival and national restoration. This is not the church speaking truth to power—this is the church aligning with power for the sake of influence.

       One of the most visible examples is the rise of movements that blend worship services with political rallies. TPUSA Faith is one such movement. It brings politicians and pastors on the same stage, uses patriotic emotion as religious fervor, and speaks of “saving the nation” as if that were the mission of the church. But yet it platforms prosperity theology, false prophecy, New Apostolic Reformation doctrines, ecumenical compromise, and man-centered worship. These are not minor disagreements—they are violations of the gospel itself.

       Yet they are being celebrated, applauded, and given spiritual authority in front of thousands. Why? Because they draw the crowds. Because they stir emotion. Because they speak the language of “unity,” “revival,” and “victory.” But none of it is anchored in the clear teaching of Biblical Scripture.

       Biblical doctrine is being ignored as it is seen as divisive. Truth is being treated as a secondary issue. Influence has become the idol.

       When the church decides it needs political power to accomplish God’s will, it repeats the oldest sin: it stops trusting the sufficiency of Christ and His Word. When it embraces false teachers for the sake of winning cultural battles, it has already lost the spiritual war. When it trades discernment for unity, it is not building the kingdom of God.

       False teachers are gaining acceptance. Political power is using religious language. Religious leaders are promoting political saviors. Crowds are gathering around emotional unbiblical movements instead of biblical truth.

       And all of it is being done in the name of Jesus—without submitting to the Word of Jesus.

       This is exactly what Scripture said would happen before the Lord returns. The apostasy comes first. The deception grows stronger. The distinction between true and false believers becomes clearer. The true church will cling to Christ and His Word.

       The false church will cling to political influence, seeking unity in similarities—but not adhering to Biblical truth.

       Now is the time to be discerning. We must hold the line on truth when everyone else is chasing a movement. We must reject any movement—no matter how patriotic, emotional, or popular—that refuses to bow to Scripture. Christ does not need political alliances. He will return on His own terms, in His own time, with His own power.

       Until then, our call is simple: preach the Word, expose false teaching, refuse compromise, contend for the faith, and remain loyal to Christ alone.

       Reply ↓

       • JP,

         This is why distinguishing two spheres and the doctrine of the spirituality of the church is so important.

         Reply ↓

         • Yes, indeed. And that’s where my grave concern is. The waters are getting muddied, even in our reformed circles.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.