Colliding Kingdoms

In 1596 James Melville, a leader of the Scottish Kirk, declared that King James VI of Scotland “was God’s silly vassal and that there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and His kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James VI is, and of whose kingdom, not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member he was.”

Melville was standing upon a fundamental principle of Reformed social ethics: the distinction between the holy kingdom of God and the secular kingdoms of men. Although James VI was king of Scotland, Jesus Christ is King of Zion. In the realm of the secular nation James enjoyed sovereignty, but in the holy church James was without distinction.

Melville’s showdown with King James is but one example of a common theme in church history. The tense conflict between church and state continuously replays a more famous kingdom confrontation between King Jesus and Governor Pilate (John 18:36). Jesus had been arrested, tried by the Jews, and sent to the Roman civil governor Pontius Pilate for judgment. Jewish leaders capitalized on Rome’s violent impatience toward rebellion. They accused Jesus of treasonous sedition against Caesar’s kingly authority. Hadn’t Jesus declared, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28)?

Confronting Jesus with the charge of rebellion, Pilate inquired, “Are you the King of the Jews?” In order to understand Jesus’ response we must first consider the nature of worldly kingdoms.

Pilate’s Power and the Kingdoms of Men

Following the great Flood, God legitimated the use of the sword to restrain sin, declaring: “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image’” (Gen. 9: 5-6).

In the order of common grace, flowing out of the cross of Christ, civil government must exercise lawful violence in order to prevent unlawful violence. This is the nature and function of the kingdoms of men: to exercise the sword in order to restrain evil and establish order. Although justice is a noble vision, order is the sine qua non of legitimate civil authority. As the meek Jesus stands before Pilate, his imperial sword, often marked by brutality and injustice, remains legitimate. The Apostle Paul reminded the church at Rome:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities…For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:1-4).

The Spirituality of the Kingdom

Against the violent backdrop of this world’s kingdoms, Christ vindicates Himself against the charge of sedition, declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Emphasizing the spiritual nature of His kingdom, Christ explains, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews” (vv. 35-36). Far from the violence of nations, the kingdom of God is defined by “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).

Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “Unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom” (John 3:3). The kingdom of God is the realm of spiritual renewal in Jesus Christ. It is the realm of the Holy Spirit’s application of Christ’s victory over sin and death. Therefore, the kingdom of God is a “new creation” already enjoying the first fruits of spiritual resurrection and renewal in Jesus Christ.

Confounding expectations, Jesus the Messiah did not come to judge but to be judged (John 12:47). Rather than raining down God’s just judgment upon the nations, Jesus Christ experienced the fullness of divine wrath on their behalf. In doing so, Christ established His kingdom in grace.

The Westminster Confession of Faith declares:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (25:2).

Thus, Christ’s kingdom of grace is His visible church. A colony of heaven on earth, Christ’s church is the eternal glory of the age to come piercing the fading glory of the present passing age. Preaching peace between God and sinner, the church looks forward to the glorious consummation of Christ’s universal kingdom at His final coming. Thus, Christ reigns over a kingdom of grace now and glory later.

Two Kingdoms Distinguished

As Christ stood before Pilate, two kingdoms were in conflict. Before Pilate stood a king whose kingdom transcends the passing order of this present age. When asked, Are you guilty of treasonous rebellion? Christ justified Himself as sinless by declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Rather, He is king over an eternal realm, the concerns of which far surpass the mundane realities of earthly politics. In response, Roman governor Pontius Pilate, brutal bearer of the sword, punisher of all rebellion against Caesar, justified Christ with his just pronouncement, “I find no guilt in him” (John 18:38).

Jesus Christ is seated with all power in heaven and earth. This means that Jesus Christ is king over all spheres of life, including church and state. This is a complex biblical truth. From Christ’s conflict with Caesar, to Emperor Henry IV’s chilly encounter with Pope Gregory VII at Canossa, to the bloody struggles of the Scottish Covenanters against state interference with the church, the acknowledgment of Christ’s universal reign over all things has created tension and conflict. Whether for the Roman papacy’s declaration of sovereignty over the affairs of church and state or the Anglican settlement granting civil authority over the affairs of the church, Christ’s universal mediatorial kingship has been cited as justification. Both systems fail to grasp the full power of Christ’s declaration, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Rather, we who would declare Christ’s kingship over the nations must be able to properly distinguish the secular and nonredemptive reign of Christ over the nations (the kingdom of His power) from His holy and redemptive reign over the church (the kingdom of His grace). To distinguish thus illuminates the wisdom of the American religious settlement granting institutional separation of church and state. Although we often fail to acknowledge it, the adoption of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution declaring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was a vindication of Covenanter principles and an authentic step forward in the application of Christ’s kingship.

The United States and the Perfect Kingdom

The First Amendment prohibiting Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” set the United States on a different course with regard to the Christian religion than had been the norm in Christendom. Until then, nations had acknowledged the reign of Christ over them by establishing an official church. (See chap. 23:3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The RPCNA rejects all of it except for the first 26 words.) An established church did not stop struggles between church and state for power. Sometimes the state claimed power to rule the church; sometimes it was the other way around. Believers agreed, however, that Christ rules both church and state.

When the United States rejected an established church, it also rejected any notion that the church should rule the state or the state should rule the church. Christians agreed, of course, that Christ rules His church. But in a nation of Christians without an established church, to whom did the state answer? In keeping with Melville’s dictum to King James of Scotland, Covenanters asserted that the state remains subject to King Jesus. We are aghast at a constitution that makes no mention of Christ or His Word because God calls nations and kings to submit to His Anointed One (Ps. 2); because Jesus claims all authority in heaven and on earth for Himself (Matt. 28:18); because without God’s Word as a standard, civil rulers would have no stable standard of right and wrong (Rom. 13:1-7); because legislators and judges would end up doing what was right in each man’s eyes (Judg. 21:25); and because a government that did not understand its subjection to Christ would forget why the church should be allowed freedom and would become tyrannical. A secular government, in short, was a government in rebellion against God. So, while agreeing with the First Amendment, we have dissented for over 200 years against a constitution that ignores Jesus Christ.

It must be understood clearly, however, that even if our Constitution stated our allegiance to Christ and His Word, there would still be conflicts between church and state, despite the First Amendment. Sin would still be present in each realm. Pride would not disappear. Within both church and state, the kingdom of God and the city of man would remain at war, producing trouble within church and state as well as between them. In this age, there can be substantial healing in individuals and in society from sin’s ravages, but even perfect institutional arrangements cannot bring perfect peace. Therefore, the church continues to pray day and night, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” “Even so, come Lord Jesus.” Amen.