The Church as Embassy: Politics, Mission, and the Two Kingdoms

What is the mission of the church and how does the church relate to culture? Every generation of God-loving, Kingdom-seeking Christians has been required to pursue an answer to this question. The local church today in Post-Christian America is moving further and further from the practical benefits of cultural Christendom. Culture in the West no longer sees the virtues of Christianity. Thought-leaders and culture-shapers in education, commerce, and politics have not only sidelined the Christian worldview, but have taken a position of antagonism toward its followers and their institution — the church! This is a paradigm shift that has caused a great deal of reflection for many seeking to live in obedience to Christ in this present world. The situation, however, is not unique. Church history and current realities of the international church reveal that cultural antagonism towards the followers of Christ is the rule — not the exception. Many Christians born in the substantial freedoms of democracy are tempted to say, “Well, the West is fundamentally different. America is a nation of laws, protections, and freedoms. It was founded on a bedrock of Judeo-Christian principles. As such it is the obligation of all Christians, and the church itself, to contend for the reestablishment of the Christian worldview to its once exalted platform in the public square.” Has God truly called the church to this polemic? In a pursuit to faithfully lead the church towards its mission and purpose, every local church leader bears a responsibility to engage these questions with biblical clarity.

Church history and current realities of the international church reveal that cultural antagonism towards the followers of Christ is the rule — not the exception.

The Bible is not silent on the church in relation to culture. God declares His intent and purpose for His functioning Body on earth. The Holy Spirit inspired the use of cultural metaphors, such as sheepfold, vineyard, household, and kingdom. Though culturally dated, these illustrations present universally understandable pictures, and their usage must remain prominent in the pulpit and teaching ministries of the local church.

The New Testament teaching on the “Kingdom of God” in relationship to His church stands out as especially prominent and significant. Much has been developed in the biblical “kingdom” analogy throughout the centuries. The intent of any analogy is to draw a “comparison between two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect.”¹ Analogies, therefore, take on nuance as they are understood in different times and cultures. The twenty-first century geopolitical manifestation of kingdoms can be best understood today by the term “nation.” In the international community of nations, foreign policy programs most often contain a delegation of representatives. These representatives are sent by a nation to take up temporary residency in a foreign land with the responsibility to represent the interest of the sending nation. The delegation of representatives is typically located in a foreign office under its sending nation’s sovereign control — an embassy. From this modern political construct of an international embassy, a helpful comparison can be made to the relationship of the church as a similar Embassy of Christ’s Kingdom² to culture.

From this modern political construct of an international embassy, a helpful comparison can be made to the relationship of the church as a similar Embassy of Christ’s Kingdom to culture.

When properly developed, this illustration can help church leadership articulate the Scriptural directives for the church. The corollary between the church and an international embassy can be seen as a development of a “two kingdoms” doctrine: the common kingdom and the redemptive kingdom. The doctrine of “the two” has held many names (e.g., two cities, two realms, two swords, and two kingdoms) throughout the centuries of church history. There are a myriad of differences between each of these unique positions on “the two.” However, the distinction between human culture and Christ’s Kingdom presently located in the local church is abundantly clear on the pages of Scripture. While holding a direct connection to the historic doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, the embassy analogy as the role of a local church further clarifies and positions the church in its biblical role of representative and herald.

As the church in America moves further from the advantages and protections of Christendom, the leadership of local churches in the West needs to return to its first century roots. God has commissioned and deployed His Embassy today in a foreign kingdom. As the church renews its allegiance to Christ — embracing its role as Embassy — may it return yet again to first century missional clarity, and by doing so find a proper alignment with God’s purpose for its pulpit, a greater unity in its body around shared mission, and an enhanced effectiveness towards the spiritual and moral well being of its mission field. Through renewing the work of Embassy, members of its local congregation will grow in contentment and confidence while laboring in the secular and the sacred, but firmly fixing their expectations and hope in the sovereignty of Christ.

God has commissioned and deployed His Embassy today in a foreign kingdom.

God’s Kingdom Embassy — The Church

The day of Christ’s passion, Pilate questioned Jesus on His kingship when he asked, “Are you the King of the Jews.”(John 18:33) Jesus famously answered, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) In this response, Jesus was saying, “Yes, Pilate, I am a King, but my kingdom is not what you think. My kingdom does not have a tangible geographical boundary. My kingdom is not of this world’s model.” This otherworldly,³ non-geographical claim for His Kingdom is consistent with the unfolding teachings of Scripture. In God’s New Testament program, there exists a distinction between the common realm and the redemptive realm. In the common kingdom, the regenerate and the unregenerate share in the function of cultural activities. By doing so, the believing and unbelieving care for the earthly in cooperation with one another. The Kingdom of God, however, is not earthly. It is a brand new, otherworldly creation for the redeemed alone. (2 Cor. 5:17) The kingdom that Jesus declared to be His Kingdom was inaugurated at His death, burial, and resurrection; revealed in the Sermon on the Mount; depicted in parables; established in the present age through the life of the church; and ultimately will be fulfilled at His Second Coming. For the New Testament Christian, the reality of Christ’s Kingdom is understood to be “already” but “not yet.”⁴ Through redemption, a believer is brought into Christ’s present Kingdom in the life and function of the local church — Christ’s Kingdom outpost.⁵ The church is a penultimate⁶ fulfillment of Christ’s Kingdom. When King Jesus returns at His Second Coming, the ultimate fulfillment of his theocratic Kingdom will be established during His Millennial reign.

For the New Testament Christian, the reality of Christ’s Kingdom is understood to be “already” but “not yet.”

A doctrine of “the two,” using the familiar term of “two kingdoms” is a helpful way to distinguish between the two separate, yet intertwined realities of the Christian’s present existence. Depending on the context, different terms have been used to contrast these two realms. For example, in political theology the term “state” may be used to differentiate the civic institutions from the religious institution of the “church.” An Old Testament scholar might refer to “Jerusalem” as spiritually distinct from the secular nature of “Babylon,” and a New Testament scholar might speak of “the things of earth” versus the “the things of heaven.” Christians are familiar with the contrast of “the two” kingdoms, but many churches in the West fail to adequately weigh their implications. As Christendom becomes less and less a reality, local churches must wrestle with the tensions of the “almost” but “not yet” of Christ’s Kingdom. Church leaders need to begin to ask, “How are we to faithfully fulfill our role as Embassy in this common kingdom land?”

The Common Kingdom

TED conference founder Richard Saul Wurman coined the phrase, “Understanding precedes action.”⁷ For the Christian, understanding God’s plan for the common and redemptive kingdoms must always precede action in the arena where “the two” interact. Before one can understand the role of Embassy for the local church, a clear understanding of the common kingdom is necessary.

When Jesus stated to Pilate that “His Kingdom was not of this world,” Jesus was in no way diminishing His divine authority and kingship over both kingdoms. The question in this text was answered in relationship to Christ’s mission of redemption. Jesus, as the second Adam, came not to redeem the kingdom of this world, but to bring spiritual life —new life— to mankind. The purpose of redemption was not “creation regained, but re-creation gained.”⁸ The first Adam brought death, Jesus brought new spiritual life — life eternal. (1 Cor. 15:22) This was the purpose for Christ’s earthly work: a work that resulted in the establishment of a Kingdom altogether distinct from the kingdoms of this world.

The purpose of redemption was not “creation regained, but re-creation gained.”

The Creator is King over both kingdoms. God’s rule over mankind is established in His role as Creator.⁹ Therefore, all creation is accountable to God. It is a fair question to ask, “If God is in charge, then why is the world so broken?” A two-kingdom perspective adds clarity to this inquiry. In creation, God gave Adam, as the seminal and federal head of the human race, a mandate and commission to exercise dominion in the earth. (Gen. 1:26-28) Through the Adamic and Noahic covenants, (Gen. 3 and 9) God delegated to humankind His visible authority over creation by establishing civil government. Of course, Adam fell — and in his fall creation was irreversibly broken. But from the garden until today, God still remains King. In His grace and for His glory, God has chosen to withhold His visible reign and to extend the loan of dominion in the common realm to sin-ruined humanity. God’s just wrath that would accompany His visible reign has been withheld for a season in order to accomplish His work of redemption, a work foretold in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) and promised in God’s covenant with Abraham. (Gen. 12) This arrangement is according to God’s sovereign will and for His maximum glory.

The common kingdom includes all aspects of this earthly life from the Genesis creation until today. Every institution and idea of the natural world is a part of the common kingdom — except for of the local church, the Word of God, and the souls of men. As the sons and daughters of Adam, all humanity, including the redeemed, share a responsibility to God for the management of the natural world through faithful fulfillment of vocation, family, and government.

Because God has delegated authority to the institution of human government, it is to be respected as authoritative in the earthly realm. Paul says in Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” The authority of the state is not ultimate. As Nicholas Wolterstoff observed, “Authority is something one has not something one is.”¹⁰ For the Christian and the non-Christian, obedience to human government is an act of obedience to God because God has given this authority to man. Therefore, the institution of human government is common to all men, yet accountable to the Creator.¹¹

The purpose of government is the pursuit of justice¹² through acting as an “order-enforcing agency.”¹³ Paul defines the role of government as a “servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4) God gave the sword of retributive justice to human government in the Noahic covenant. (Gen. 9:6) This sword, as Karl Barth observed, is “an instrument of divine grace” where and when it acts against human sin.¹⁴ The legitimacy of human government is not, however, dependent on its performance of righteous judgment. The legitimacy of any ruling “state” entity is established in God’s sovereign permissive will. Jonathon Leeman, in his work entitled Political Church, rightly observes that “people can represent God’s rule when and where God authorizes them to do so, and only insofar as God has authorized them to do so.”¹⁵ In exercise of His sovereign prerogative, God “removes kings and sets up kings.” (Daniel 2:21) No governing authority — democratic, monarchial, totalitarian, or communistic — has ever existed that God has not permitted to exist. Therefore, all human government is legitimate. Likewise, man will be held accountable for all abuse of this delegated authority at the timing of the Righteous Judge. No matter how powerful the State appears to be, its reign has an expiration date. Human government, like all of the fallen world, is passing away. (I John 2:17) Therefore, the authority of the State in the common kingdom is legitimate, yet clearly provisional.¹⁶

Therefore, the authority of the State in the common kingdom is legitimate, yet clearly provisional.

The Kingdom of God

So much of the failure to understand and then accept the roles, jurisdiction, and boundaries between these two kingdoms comes from the immense substantive difference between “the two.” The common kingdom is readily apparent and immersive, but the Kingdom of God is not yet fully visible — not yet fully actuated. As Christians live in the period between “the coronation of Christ and the final glorious victory of Christ,”¹⁷ a choice must be made to “set [the Christian’s] mind on the things that are above, not on the things on earth.” (Col. 3:2)

Pilate, looking on his new prisoner, failed to see Jesus beyond the visible. If there was a claim to be made to Jesus’ kingship, then the logical assumption must be made that He ruled over an ethnic people and a geographical land. Jesus was a Jew; therefore any claim to kingship must be to the Jewish nation. In the mind of Pilate, Jesus could only be “King of the Jews.” Interestingly, Pilate was not the only one to misplace Jesus’ throne. The majority of the masses that followed Jesus throughout His Judean journeys were anxiously waiting for Him to take the visible political throne of David. They looked for the coronation of a King in Jerusalem, but the cross shattered their expectations. A far greater Kingdom than national Israel was inaugurated on that hill outside Jerusalem. The Savior-King completed the work necessary for the creation of His new nation —“spiritual Israel.” On that day, the Kingdom of God broke into the world in the hearts of His redeemed.

Before His ascension, King Jesus commissioned his Kingdom Embassy — the New Testament Church. As founder and savior of His church, Jesus continues the work of redeeming and commissioning ambassadors to labor in His Kingdom outposts. The local church is the location of the Kingdom of God in the present world. As the first act of His coming Kingdom, the official Embassy of Christ on earth has the authority to represent heaven. As His new creation, the membership bears the resemblance of Christ’s character and righteousness birthed through Gospel transformation.

The church’s office of Embassy in the common kingdom is one of representation, not dominion. This principle is rooted in the newness of the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not come to “improve the old, but to embody the new.”¹⁸ Therefore, the life and mission of the New Testament church is not the regaining of something lost in the Garden. It is an “entirely new way of doing life.”18 Representing the Kingdom of God should not lead the church to the business of “taking back” common kingdom ground. The church must tend to the “business of the redemptive kingdom” and “not trample on the authority of the common kingdom institutions.”¹⁹ Jesus has entrusted the church with the “keys to the kingdom,”(Matt. 16) and the corresponding mission of boldly, yet humbly, declaring the Good News to our common kingdom neighbors. The Gospel of Jesus is radically transformative and spills over to indirectly affect every arena of earthly life. However, David Vandrunnen wisely states in his book, Living in the Two Kingdoms, that “If the church is to retain its spiritual character it must be zealous for doing its own special work well (which the church has found to be difficult enough) and to leave the other for the institute to which God has entrusted it.”²⁰

The church’s office of Embassy in the common kingdom is one of representation, not dominion.

The Christian’s Responsibility in “the Two”

The New Testament paints a clear picture of “the two” kingdoms. Christians, however, find themselves laboring in both. At the moment of conversion, God does not “yank” the believer physically out of the common kingdom. The obligation continues for every new believer to get up the next morning and return to the God-given responsibilities of earthly life. A believer’s cultural responsibilities are intertwined with obedience to Christ and are not to be viewed as an unfortunate obligation. God has given His children jobs, families, hobbies, and even recreation as an extension of His will for their life. Christians, therefore, are to engage in all these things “heartily, as for the Lord.” (Col. 3:23)

While the Christian’s responsibilities in the common realm remain, the newly commissioned ambassador of the Kingdom of God assumes a new identity. This new birth changes everything. The follower of Christ exchanges an earthly worldview for a heavenly perspective. This new way of understanding the world in light of the coming Kingdom of God changes that individual’s priority, passion, and conduct. The Christian no longer sees this world as ultimate. His new identification with the theology of the Cross may even lead him to no longer feel welcome where he once did. As this new believer continues to faithfully engage in these cultural responsibilities, he now does it not to gain this world — but to obey his Heavenly Father.

At times, Christians seeking to faithfully carry out their responsibilities in the common realm are entrusted by God with significant roles of leadership and influence in earthly things. These leadership roles may include areas such as business, education, politics, and others. In some way, nearly every area of the common kingdom is served or managed by those who also hold spiritual membership in the local church. When God places a Christian in one of these arenas, He expects the newly-commissioned leader to be vocationally faithful and to use every resource at his disposal for the promotion of good. Though many examples of this could be referenced, William Wilberforce is a prominent one. Wilberforce came to faith one year after his appointment to the British Parliament. After his conversion, he continued to hold his political office. God used a man endowed with political wisdom and a Christian worldview to champion the abolition of slavery in the British kingdom. The result of his labor had a global impact for good. Through vocation and special calling, God, at times, gives His children the opportunity to speak biblical truth to national power. When these opportunities are received, they are to be embraced in the pursuit of good. The believers’ common kingdom callings vary, but the goal remains the same: a Christian is to represent Jesus well through his conduct and character.

Accompanying the Christian’s new identity is a new citizenship with new priorities. Though he continues to share in the responsibility of the common kingdom, the citizen of Heaven must no longer feel at home here. The Christian has become an “exile” and a “sojourner” in this present world. Similar to Daniel and the Jewish exiles of the sixth century BC, the followers of Christ are living in “Babylon.” From the biblical vantage point of two kingdoms, it becomes readily apparent that “Babylon extends to every corner of the earth, even the nice ones.”²¹ As “exiles from the heavenly homeland, Christians are called to be responsible participants in their societies,”²² “seeking the welfare of the city,” and “praying to the Lord on its behalf.” (Jer. 29:7) Just like the Jewish exiles, Christians are “not to think of Babylon as their permanent home or try to turn it into a new Jerusalem.”²³ Christians are laboring for a “better country.” (Hebrews 11:16) ”For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” (Hebrews 13:14) While the citizens of heaven intermingle and share in cultural activities with unbelievers, they are to remain focused on the Kingdom to come. It is only in the local church that the otherworldly Kingdom principles of love, forgiveness, justice, and holiness are lived out and from there, carried into the neighborhoods of the common.

“Babylon extends to every corner of the earth, even the nice ones.”

While it is true that the individual Christian shares responsibility in both kingdoms, it is also important that church leadership distinguishes the responsibility of the “church as a corporate actor from the church member as an individual actor.”²⁴ The breadth of responsibility for the church member, as an actor in both the common and the redemptive kingdoms, extends beyond the responsibility of the local church as an organization that is exclusively an Embassy of the Kingdom of God. This distinction of the Body-individual and the Body-corporate makes an important contribution of two-kingdom doctrine to the discussion of church and culture.

Local church leadership must consciously recognize that the biblically defined mission for the local church corporate should not lead that organization to seek to manage the affairs of the foreign land. As Embassy of Christ’s Kingdom, the local church exists to represent Kingdom interests alone. The message the church is to proclaim is a message of repentance to the people of the nations. Clearly, in Christ’s first coming, He came not declaring a message of repentance for the institutions of governing Rome or governing Jerusalem. Jesus came declaring to the individuals of the world the offer of the New Creation.

A Response to Critics of the Two Kingdom Embassy Analogy

Some may take offense with the previous statements — or the assertion of “the two” kingdoms entirely— claiming that they are “dualistic” and, therefore, present an unnecessary separation. However, the error to properly view the narrowed missional jurisdiction of the local church — commonly held by the critics of two-kingdom theology — has often diverted the church from its clear mission objective. This has resulted in the misguiding of many Christians, and at times brought harm to their common kingdom neighbors.

Opposing Viewpoint: The Church in“Power Over” Culture

Local church leaders must learn from history or face the danger of repeating error. Two kingdom advocate, David Vandrunenn stated, “Through two thousand years of church history the identification of the church (or parts thereof) with nation-states, ethnic groups, and political factions has proven to be an especially serious temptation and snare.”²⁵ Going back to the fourth century with the formation of catholic (universal) Christendom by Constantine following the Edict of Milan, the negative consequences are readily apparent. As the church leaders of that era fully embraced their newly found power of influence over the highest governorship, the church-state relationship that followed inevitably resulted in a great deal of “long-term problems”²⁶ for the churches of that region. In the centuries following this newly founded church-state initiative, not only was the church corrupted, but the European world was plunged into the millennium of the Dark Ages.

Similar abuses remained in the sixteenth and seventeenth century post-reformation world of Europe. God greatly used the spiritual giants of the Reformation to lead a return to the pursuit of biblical Christianity. In fact, much of the modern Two Kingdom writings find their roots in the biblical observations of Martin Luther and John Calvin. However, for all their written contributions, the continued practical wedding of church-state relations resulted in some of the same long-term problems of the Roman Catholic church before them. One such famous example of their continued error happened at the hands of the Magisterial Protestant Ulrich Zwingli when on January 5, 1527, a Swiss Anabaptist was drowned following the passing of an edict issued in Zurich that made re-baptism a capital offense.

The errors of Catholic Christendom and the Magisterial Protestants continued into the New World of America with the founding of the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony. The “City on a Hill” dream of John Winthrop and the Puritan leaders of the seventeenth century ultimately brought persecution to any dissenters of Puritan teaching. For all the wonderful contributions of these God-fearing Puritans (and there were many), they failed like their European brothers to properly distinguish “the two” kingdoms when they founded their political theocracy. By instituting their theocratical system, the Puritan leaders made the church the managing authority in the political affairs of the common kingdom. Like in Europe, this ultimately resulted in the loss of purity in the church. Additionally, the assumption of the Sword of retributive justice that was wielded by the theocratic Puritan rulership resulted in human suffering much as it had in Zurich a century before. History rightfully judges the error of the Puritans’ political theology, which resulted in such wrongdoings as the Salem Witch trials of the 1690s, the beating of the Baptist minister Obadiah Holmes, and the legal excommunication of fellow Baptist pastors Roger Williams and John Clarke to name a few.

Baptist ministers Roger Williams and John Clarke lived through the negative consequences of the power over civil government abuse of the church. Through their writings, they championed a return of the local church to a first and second century view of “the two” kingdoms. Roger Williams rightly saw that the involvement of the church in government brings the “wilderness into the garden.”²⁷ He recognized that God has placed magistrates as civil ministers distinct from spiritual ministers in the church.²⁸ In his book Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, John Barry concluded that Williams believed that “when one mixes religion and politics one gets politics.”²⁹ These observations seem obvious to the American mind shaped by three hundred years of the Western ideals of religious liberty. However, in an attempt to combat the evils of this world, local church leaders of the West are still tempted to lead their churches into the arena of the common kingdom through political activism. According to the Embassy of God directives, “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” but through the Gospel “they have divine power to destroy strongholds.”(2 Cor. 10:4) The church must, therefore, heed the advice of Williams, for “when you mix religion and politics,” you do indeed “get politics.”

Roger Williams rightly saw that the involvement of the church in government brings the “wilderness into the garden.”

Opposing Viewpoint: The Church in “Influence Over” Culture

The establishment of the state church that Constantine, the Reformers, and the Puritans championed is nearly uniformly rejected in principle by church leaders in the West. It is, however, an error that must be recalled when the temptation to harness political resources to accomplish spiritual ends is explored by the church. A more deceptive error in the modern church context of the West is not the direct power over government pursuit, but the belief that the church is to assume a strong influence over civil government. Christian leaders may feel that through their church’s direct influence in the affairs of community and country, they may be able to bring the culture into conformity with God’s directives. Some would go as far as asserting that the church should hold intentional influence over all areas of the common kingdom. They would teach that it is the direct mission of the church to influence every area of culture: education, commerce, art, and politics. In a form of modern Puritanism, proponents at the extreme of this idea border on a direct power over position.

“Dominion Theology,” “Theonomy,” “Christian Reconstruction,” or merely “Reconstructionism” hold that it is a Christian’s responsibility to challenge the anti-Christian character of society and culture. The Reconstructionist sees an obligation to “seek to change society in ways that will bring it into conformity with the teaching of Scripture.”³⁰ The idea that the church is to “seek to change” culture when developed by a proponent of “Dominion Theology” holds the view that “God calls on all Christians to ‘take dominion’ over all spheres of human life.”³¹ Self-proclaimed theonomist Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute wrote in his book, The Mission of God:

Biblical doctrine tells us that the kingly priesthood and dominion given to Adam in the Garden of Eden … has now been re-established in and through Jesus Christ, the second Adam. As a kingly priesthood, we are called to work and serve under the scepter of our great high priest … applying the crown rights of the king in each area of life. This … is the concrete task of God’s people applied in history. We tend to God’s garden…not just in evangelism and our personal lives, but in all socio-political and cultural engagement.³²

Boot’s theonomy here takes a transformationalist view of the Kingdom being set up today over the kingdom of this world. He goes on to state that following the first and second “land grants” of Eden and Canaan, the “whole earth” has been given as a “third land grant … to Christ’s chosen race, the new Israel of God.”32 Boot says, “This is the inheritance of the People of God in Christ Jesus now.”32 This mandate for a Christian socio-political dominance comes from the view that Christ’s work, as second Adam, included the original mandate to “subdue the earth;” instead of the Pauline teaching that Christ’s work is producing a new creation.(2 Cor. 5:17) Transformationalists surmise that because God will one day transform all of creation, Christians should seek to transform all of human culture here and now. This view presents the local church not as an Embassy of the Kingdom coming, but rather as the ground soldiers of a Kingdom being established today. By espousing this transformationalist view, there is a danger of erring like the Jews of the first century who longed for a political savior. The messiah of their making would throw off the shackles of wicked Rome and establish God’s Kingdom on earth through them. However, in His first coming, Jesus did not come to reign politically, and to that end, He did not commission His church. Jesus came not to redeem this world, but to redeem the souls of fallen men. There is a Kingdom battle raging today, but the battlefield is not for culture —it is for the heart of man.

There is a Kingdom battle raging today, but the battlefield is not for culture —it is for the heart of man.

Indeed, the Redeemed will one day rule and reign with Christ. (Revelation 5:10) However, sitting on this side of Christ’s Second Coming, while Christians look clearly to the victorious Christ crucified, there is coming a day when all the world will behold the triumphant Christ as King of the nations. Gary North, a Chrisitan economist and leading proponent of Reconstructionism, claimed that one of the major tenets of Christian Reconstructionism is Postmillennialism.³³ This is a telling assertion. Clearly, one’s kingdom worldview will be determined in large part by his understanding of the eschatological timing of Christ’s redemptive plan. From a Premillennial eschatology, Christians understand that the centerpiece of the Church Age is God’s work of bringing spiritual life to the souls of believers through the work of redemption. Jesus is King, but in His sovereign plan and for His glory, He has chosen to call out a spiritual people not through the coercion of His visible reign, but by His Spirit. In this way and during this age, the Kingdom of God is breaking into the world, not in parliaments and statehouses, but in the lives of new believers organized in the present yet eternal local church. On the other hand, Postmillennialism sees the Kingdom of God as a presently coming global reality. N.T. Wright, a postmillennial transformationalist, wrongly asserts in his recent book, Surprised by Hope, that God “wanted … to rescue humans in order that humans might be his rescuing stewards over creation. [This] is the inner dynamic of the kingdom of God.”³⁴ Wright, along with most other transformationalist views, is anchored in an eschatological understanding that sees the local church and Christians as agents of God ushering in Christ’s Kingdom today. Coherency in a two-kingdom doctrine is far more compatible with premillennialism. As local church leaders holding premillennial doctrinal positions labor to lead their churches to faithfulness in Kingdom mission much help can be gained by weighing the implications of their eschatology.

Other Opposing Viewpoints: Social Gospel & Extreme Separatism

Modern Transformationalists are not alone in their failure to properly hold a two-kingdom doctrinal position. The recent proponents of what has been termed the “Social Gospel” and Liberation theology, among many other doctrinal shortcomings, have erred in their Kingdom theology as well. Liberal theologian Harvey Cox wrote in his work The Secular City, that “the starting point for any theology of the church today must be a theology of social change.”³⁵ The view that the political and secular world is the arena of God’s liberating activity incorrectly assesses both the place and the type of work that God is doing in the world today.

On the other end of the theological spectrum, but also failing to properly view the two kingdoms, is the extreme separatism of John Howard Yoder and others that would advocate for Christians to abstain from any form of civil service, such as military, police, or even politics. Yoder argues for a nearly Christian-less political system. He advocates in his viewpoints on Romans 13, that governmental service is “not the function to be exercised by Christians”³⁶ due to its requirement to wield the sword of civil authority. He, and others from his position, would argue that civil service is the role of unbelievers alone. Certainly, this does not hold up to the notable fact that early church converts in the New Testament were not asked by church leaders to step down from offices in the Roman government or military. This was not required or expected of Cornelius, the centurion (Acts 10) or Erastus, the city treasurer. (Romans 16) Believers must, therefore, conclude that Christians may share in all areas of common kingdom responsibility.

Local church leaders obedient to their Kingdom of God directives must remain focused on limiting their corporate engagement in the secular world to Kingdom priorities and interests while training and equipping the members of the Body to remain faithfully present³⁷ in their common kingdom responsibilities.

Conclusions — Optimism for Kingdom Communities

Like the aerial view of an interstate “spaghetti junction,” the intersection is admittedly complex between the local church, the individual Christian, and secular culture. A danger exists to oversimplify a definitive and universal path forward for every local congregation in the middle of varied and often unique circumstances and challenges. The Embassy analogy of the local church from a two-kingdom perspective does not present a detailed road map. It does, however, give a general way for the local church to view its Kingdom priorities and mission. The better local church leaders understand what the road of biblical cultural engagement looks like, the more likely the church will find itself effective and faithful in its season of time.

There are several practical benefits for the church as it fulfills the Kingdom role of Embassy. One such benefit is that it clarifies the church’s mission. Because God has designed and empowered His church, its effectiveness is not tied to its creativity but rather its obedience. Just as a foreign embassy represents and declares the interest of its sending nation to the host nation, the local church represents and declares Christ to the common kingdom. This is the mission of the church.

Through this representative mission, the church is a model of the Kingdom and a picture of counter-cultural Christlikeness. When it conducts itself in accordance with God’s Word, It embodies an example of submission to Christ’s rule; and it stands in contrast to the fallen norms of culture. A failure to properly represent Kingdom values is a failure to fulfill the church’s representative responsibilities; and inevitably hinders the declaration of the church — the Gospel. As the Kingdom is where humility, forgiveness, and selflessness are to abound, then it must abound in the church today as a witness of the Kingdom yet to come. Stated another way, as the Kingdom is where “little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and little black girls as sisters and brothers,” to borrow from Martin Luther King, Jr, then let that be true today in the church as a representative of Christ’s Kingdom.³⁸ Through its demonstration of the Kingdom of God lifestyle, the church makes visible to the nations a better way — God’s way.

The kingdom of God is unsmashable, and it has an embassy in your neighborhood that we call the local church.

As the herald of the Kingdom of God, the Embassy of the church declares the Kingship of Jesus in the neighborhoods of the common realm. Jesus is King in both the arena of the spiritual and the earthly. However, Christ’s redemptive work today is a personal work. Yes, nations stand accountable, but not as institutions, as individuals. Therefore, the message from the Embassy is a message of individual repentance and submission to God through His offer of the gift of salvation. Darkness always produces darkness. Only a heart transformation through true spiritual birth can restore an individual to fellowship with his Creator and equip him to walk in conformity with God’s demands. Therefore, the Gospel message of the new life of God’s Kingdom is what the church lives out and declares. It is the church’s mission.

The Gospel is also the most effective means for real cultural change. Through declaring the message of repentance in salvation to the neighborhoods of the common kingdom, the local church receives the benefit of enhanced effectiveness towards the spiritual and moral well-being of its mission field. Although cultural change is not the primary goal of the Kingdom-oriented local church, it is another practical result of Embassy work. English philosopher John Locke, one of the formative influencers of early American thought, believed that “the social fabric” of a nation was “dependent on commitments underpinned by the fear of God.”³⁹ When America was founded, there was a general respect for God in the land. This contributed greatly to conformity of its originating documents to God-honoring ideals. The reality is that one will not have a free nation with God-fearing laws and conduct unless that nation has the fear of God in the hearts of its people. The fear of God cannot be legislated. It will only be found in a nation through the individual and relational influence of spiritual heart change. This is the work of the Gospel. Therefore, the greatest contribution that the local church and its members can make towards the “welfare of the city” is Gospel declaration. Holding to the exclusivity of Gospel work as the church’s visible method of cultural engagement is strategically wise and missionally faithful. Christians are not called to fight against the evils of culture. They are called to stand (Ephesians 6:11) in truth while laboring for the souls of men.

A third benefit received through Embassy work is a proper employment of the pulpit to simply preach the Word. The pastor of a local church is a minister of God’s Word. He is, therefore, given the task of only speaking what the Word plainly teaches and not influencing individual Christians to his opinions or judgments.⁴⁰ Through faithful and systematic exposition of God’s Word, the pastor must boldly proclaim “thus saith the Lord” when encountering “political” topics in the text. The pulpit, subservient only to God’s Word, must not become a platform for policymaking, activism, or the championing of a political platform. A pastor must stand in Spirit-granted confidence that God’s Word is powerful enough to guide the flock to obedience and conformity to Christ even in the complexities of the world around them. The pulpit of the church has one purpose — to be the place where the Word of God is delivered.

Finally, God intends that the Embassy of the church exemplifies a place of preserved unity through missional prioritization. This unity is not found around a social goal but rather around a shared mission of Kingdom likeness and witness. It is important that the Body of Christ remembers humility to preserve this unity. Many cultural and political positions are complex. Christians, therefore, should be led by the local church to understand that opinions on these matters are best left in the category of personal “wisdom” dictates versus clear “biblical” dictates. A biblical worldview will guide the believer in the development of positions, but Scripture may not explicitly dictate those positions. Therefore, these views should be held as wise — but not inherently Christian.⁴¹ The path to unity in the local church is through humility in matters of wisdom and a collective embrace of the Kingdom mission.

As “sojourners” and “exiles,” the Christians of the West must accept that they, like the Christians of other lands and times, are now a “rabble minority” and must get used to the challenges that come with it.⁴² As Tim Keller recently wrote, “We are entering a new era in which there is not only no social benefit to being Christian, but an actual social cost.”⁴³ As the local church engages a rising desire to organize the Body to “take back” America for God, local church leaders must lovingly and biblically instruct their congregants that America is not and has never been Israel, or the Kingdom. Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world. Christians must therefore temper their expectations of what God wants accomplished in the common realm. The followers of Christ must remain present and faithful in their vocation and their civil opportunities, such as voting and respectful petition, while engaging every piece of ground they tread for good in the present world. However, Christian’s engagement in the “affairs of human culture” should maintain a “reserved” expectation of what is “temporary, provisional and bound to pass away.”⁴⁴

With Christ’s present and eternal reign in mind, the Kingdom view of believers should not be one of defeatism but anchored in contentment and hope. As the Christian labors “denying ungodliness and worldly lust” while living “soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world,”(Titus 2:12) may the collective church stand in confidence that their “God shall supply all [their] need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.”(Phil. 4:19)

As public opinion towards the local church shifts from tolerance to antagonism, local church leaders should lead their church forward in confidence knowing that Christ’s Embassy — the church — does not exist in this nation, or any nation because of the favor of the political powers of this world. Christ is sovereign! He alone establishes, preserves, and furthers His church, and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) The church does not advocate for its existence or missional prosperity. Through missional faithfulness, God’s church simply receives it. Not by the hands of Christian statesmen or voting ballots, but by the sovereign and mighty hand of God. Indeed, legalized and politically-protected Christianity is a wonderful privilege. The church, however, is not dependent on it. Two millennia of church history clearly demonstrate God working consistently through His church often in the absence of political protection. The church rightly draws its confidence for its preservation and missional fruitfulness from Christ regardless of its socio-political environment.

Alistair Begg, the pastor of Parkside Church, summarized well the confident hope of believers when he wrote that “The kingdom of God is unsmashable, and it has an embassy in your neighborhood that we call the local church. Commit to it. Serve your church family. Give yourself to it. Because, when the Lord builds his church, we are being used to build the only kingdom that will last forever.”⁴⁵

---