This is how far the Christian Clergy has sunk;
From Rev. Chrissy Gordon, R2K and Escondido trained;
“Bringing the political war between the left and the right into the pulpit is unequivocally a compromise of Christian ministry and using the ministry for power and gain.”
One has to wonder if Rev. Gordon would retrospectively abominate the, by and large. Reformed Black Robed Regiment who were the ones who, from the pulpit, declared the whole counsel of God against the Trepidations of King George and the British parliament in the run up to the American War for Independence.
Or would Rev. Gordon abominate Ambrose, Bishop of Milan who used his power as Bishop to repreminad the Emperor Theodosius I for his unjust massacre of Thessalonica citizens in retribution. Ambrose, in his Ecclesiastical office wrote Emperor Theodosius the Great a letter stating the emperor needed to demonstrate repentance for the massacre, further adding that emperor Theodosius would be forbidden from receiving the Eucharist until he had done so.
Would Rev. Gordon abominate Reformed Theologian Charles Hodge who wrote on the same subject saying;
“To adopt any theory which would stop the mouth of the church, and prevent her bearing her testimony to the kings and rulers, magistrates and people, in behalf of the truth and law of God, is like one who administers chloroform to a man to prevent his doing mischief. We pray God that this poison may be dashed away, before it has reduced the church to a state of inanition, and delivered her bound hand and foot into the power of the world.”
Next we have to ask the question; “Why speaking God’s revelatory truth to every subject as in the pulpit is unequivocally a compromise of Christian ministry” and is a matter where one is ” using the ministry for power and gain?”
Is it a compromise of God’s Word to allow the mind of God to be known on every subject under the sun? Is it a compromise of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life to set forth the mind of God on whatever subject may be presenting itself before men?
According to Gordon’s precious R2K, God’s mind may not be made known from the pulpit on subjects like State sponsored terrorism, or transexualism, or no fault divorce, or abortion, because clergy are not able to decipher the mind of God from God’s revelation.
In my estimation the real reason that R2K advocates for this position is that it provides a compromise cover while at the same time allowing to build large churches. You see, if one speaks the mind of God from the pulpit on issues that are contentious in the culture one is going to alienate large segments of the population who will, in turn, not attend the church (and so give to the Church) where clergy are setting forth the mind of God from Scripture. This stance by Gordon and all his R2K toadies is not one of principle. It is one of financial gain. The R2K fanboys think that if they can make the church and pulpit apolitical they can curry the support and finances of both the right and the left.
Gordon’s position is the position of both the coward and the grifter and God will not forget the cowardice nor this grifting that is being done in His name.
Rev. Chrissy Gordon writes,
“They attack the entire purpose of Christian ministry. Do what the Spirit does in convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. Don’t drag America’s political cesspool in Christ’s pulpit. This approach is earthly, sensual, and demonic.”
Bret responds,
This is pietistic bullspit. This is Jesus Juking taken to Ph.D level. This is ecclesiastical gaslighting.
The entire purpose of Christian Ministry, in relation to the pulpit, is to set forth the entire counsel of God. Further, the entire ministry of the Christian ministry is to set forth all of Christ for all of life.
How is there any convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment apart from speaking on the subjects of sin in the culture, of what righteousness looks like in the public square, of what judgment to come looks like for those who will put their trust in wicked political solutions?
I quite agree that America’s politics is a cesspool (just like R2K churches) but one reason America’s politics is a cesspool is because the pulpit has been silent on the mind of God when it comes to political issues before the American public. The one way to guarantee the continuing cesspool of American politics is by Godly men remaining silent on the mind of God expressly set forth in Holy Writ.
Rev. Chrissy Gordon’s R2K approach is anti-Christ, smells of sulfur, and is a sure fire recipe for the church to continue to provide only escapism for answers to life’s hard question. If we lived in orthodox times Gordon would be brought up on charges for advancing the idea that the Kingship of Christ over every area of life should be banned from the pulpit.
Rev. Chrissy Gordon writes,
What’s truly cowardly is to not give people their true savior when that’s what they need most. Enough is enough with this.
Preach Christ and him crucified, not America and its politics improved.
Bret responds,
That savior that people desperately needs is also King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Gordon wants to give a “Savior,” who because He has been stripped of His title and position of King cannot truly be savior. For Gordon and his R2K effeminate pals Christ saves but He does not rule. Gordon has surrendered Christ in His threefold office (Munus Triplex) and instead given us a Christ who is no Christ since the R2K Christ only holds one office (Priest).
R2K is heresy and anyone who advocates for it is a heretic.
How do these guys read or listen to previous pastors and make such new and bad conclusions?
They can listen to the Bible Bus with J Vernon Magee and hear him rip liberals and commies. I think he is known as staying Christ focused. Many examples of doing both, sharing the gospel and naming the wolves of communism, critical race theory, feminism, etc.
Hello Kurt,
These chaps would abominate J. Vernon McGee. I have my problems with him as well given his Dispensationalism.
Just so you know… I’m pretty sure your Pastor would agree w/ Chrissy Gordon.
False dilemma. Staying Christ-focused and exposing error are not mutually exclusive, but R2K rightly distinguishes the church’s office from the state’s. Naming sin is part of gospel preaching; turning the pulpit into a partisan platform is not. The issue is jurisdiction, not silence.
R2K does not distinguish between church and state but rather builds a dualistic barrier between the two. It is not partisan to name the sin being pursued in the larger culture. The issue is SILENCE. R2K, desires to shut the prophetic voice of the Church.
I hate R2K.
Just say you want to legalize and renew the institution of slavery and you will find out just how fast Rev Gordon will find it in him to preach on politics.
“Rev. Chrissy Gordon’s R2K approach is anti-Christ, smells of sulfur, and is a sure fire recipe for the church to continue to provide only escapism for answers to life’s hard question.”
Modern Protestants may sometimes wonder why the Reformation-era Protestants attacked the monastic institution so aggressively. One reason for that was that they saw “monkery” as promoting just this kind of “escapist” attitudes, according to which devout Christians could do nothing better with their lives than flee into monasteries. (As many sensitive souls did during the barbarous early Middle Ages, fleeing the wicked world.)
Equivocation. The Reformers opposed monasticism not because it withdrew from political entanglement, but because it invented false vocations and meritorious works outside the ordinary callings of family, labor, and church. R2K affirms precisely what the Reformers recovered: the dignity of ordinary, public life under God’s providence,ordered by natural law and distinct offices. Rejecting clerical politicization is not escapism; it’s fidelity to proper vocation.
The R2K worldview also did not appear out of vacuum; it was aided from “outside the church” by secularist activists who openly sought the shut the mouths of Christian ministers, like Jean Barbeyrac, a liberal French Huguenot who became an expert of the Enlightenment-era “natural law” ideology (with its pagan Greek and Roman roots):
https://books.openedition.org/larhra/735
“Frustrated in his attempt to become a full minister of the French church—on account of his supposed Socinian leanings—he turned instead to the study of natural law.
…
Most revealing, perhaps, is the remarkable address Barbeyrac held in 1721, four years after his arrival in Groningen: De magistratu, forte peccante, e pulpitis sacris non traducendo. The address questioned the lawfulness of denouncing magistrates from the pulpit. Barbeyrac’s message was unmistakable. No clergyman, he claimed, has the right to publicly criticize the magistracy for any reason whatsoever. A minister of the church has the same obligation as any other citizen.
…
It would probably not be far off the mark to claim that most Dutch law students—many of whom would later follow a career as a magistrate—were quite familiar with the contents of Barbeyrac’s anticlerical address. Moreover, in the course of the eighteenth century references to the address surfaced time and again, in poems, in moral weeklies, in sermons, and so on.”
Irrelevant genealogy fallacy. The historical influence of Jean Barbeyrac or Enlightenment-era ius naturae theory on some modern conceptions of political theology does not determine the validity of the Reformed Two Kingdoms (R2K) doctrine.
1. R2K is not Enlightenment naturalism
R2K theology arises from classical metaphysics and Reformed federalism, not Enlightenment nominalism or liberal rationalism. Its account of natural law rests on intrinsic finality, real essences, and the providence of God—not the autonomous reason of Barbeyrac, Pufendorf, or Hobbes. R2K holds to a theologically grounded natural law accessible to reason but ordered to man’s supernatural end.
2. Barbeyrac is not R2K’s source
Barbeyrac’s 1721 address was a political maneuver within Erastian civil religion. R2K rejects Erastianism. The church has spiritual independence and retains full liberty to proclaim the moral law. What R2K rejects is using the pulpit to wield civil power, not the moral witness of the church.
3. Historical use ≠ theological warrant
That Barbeyrac’s views were cited by secular magistrates proves only that worldly powers will co-opt whatever strengthens their autonomy. That says nothing about the validity of principled two-kingdom theology, which is rooted in the Reformers (Calvin: duplex regimen), Augustine (civitas Dei), and ultimately Scripture (Rom 13; Matt 22:21; John 18:36).
Conclusion:
Bad actors misusing a principle does not invalidate its metaphysical or theological legitimacy. R2K is not a child of Barbeyrac or the Enlightenment, but of Christ’s Lordship administered through distinct spheres of providence.
This critique misrepresents both the metaphysical and theological framework of Reformed Two Kingdom (R2K) doctrine.
1. Christ’s Kingship is Not Denied
R2K affirms Christus Rex. Christ rules all things, including the civil and ecclesial spheres. The distinction is not between realms of truth but of office: church and state are both under His providential kingship, but exercise different delegated authorities. The state bears the sword for justice; the church administers Word and sacrament for salvation. These are real, divinely ordained institutions with distinct final causes.
2. Preaching and the Limits of Office
The pulpit is the instrument of the Church’s office. It declares the gospel and moral law as illuminated by Scripture and natural reason. That includes denouncing injustice—but within its mode and end. The Church does not legislate, prosecute, or campaign. It witnesses. Confusing the offices—making the pulpit a political stump—usurps the state’s vocation and undermines the Church’s own.
3. Historic Examples Misapplied
Ambrose confronted Theodosius as bishop on moral grounds, not as a rival magistrate. Likewise, the Black Robed Regiment often overstepped. Charles Hodge, cited, explicitly distinguished the Church’s spiritual voice from civil action. His warning was about silencing moral witness, not collapsing jurisdictions.
4. The Charge of Cowardice Is Baseless
The claim that R2K exists to “build large churches” is speculative and malicious. R2K theology arises from coherent metaphysics: natural ends, secondary causes, and the ordered distinction of powers. It is not pragmatism but principled realism grounded in classical Christian metaphysics and federal theology.
5. The Real Issue Is Providence and Ends
Civil authority is a temporal good, real and bounded. The Church’s end is eternal. R2K insists that while truth is one, offices are distinct. Denying this confuses grace with nature, eschatology with politics, and risks clerical overreach.
Summary:
R2K is not cowardice, relativism, or heresy. It is a metaphysically coherent and confessionally grounded doctrine affirming that Christ rules all, but through distinct means. It guards the integrity of both church and state by preserving their God-ordained vocations.
1.) R2K DOES deny Christ’s Kingship by muting it for the common realm and placing it under a different sceptre. Christ does not rule explicitly in the common realm per R2K but only implicitly via Natural Law. This whole R2K conception of Natural Law has been disputed not only by us Presuppositionalists/Theonomists but also by the non-R2K natural law guys like Stephen Wolfe. So, both you chaps and the Wolfe chaps appeal to this obvious Natural Law but you cannot agree on the reading of this putatively obvious “Natural Law.” It seems Natural Law is not as obvious on this matter as you would like it to be and Christ’s ruling “by His left hand” in the common realm by Natural Law is quite up for dispute.
Of course the preferred understanding is that there is one Kingdom with different jurisdictions wherein we find Christ’s appointment as stewards over those differing respective jurisdictions. In such a way these realms are both independent and yet interdependent. Independent because they each have been assigned different roles and responsibilities (Church = grace [Keys]/ Civil Social = justice [sword] / Family = discipline [Rod]).
You’re reading and all Natural Law readings creates a dualism. It ends up giving us a Gnostic Jesus ruling over a Gnostic Kingdom.
2.) The Keys are the instrument of the Church’s office. Via the Keys the Kingdom of God is opened and closed. Via the Keys Word and Sacrament are given to the end of building up the body of Christ. The whole idea of natural reason is a piece with Natural law. Natural reason is fallen and so redeemed reason as considering the Word and the good and necessary consequences from the Word instructs and guides God’s people. The Church clearly has a role in speaking to the State as seen throughout Scripture. (John the Baptist denounced Herod, Jesus called Herod “that Fox,” The proclamation that “there is no other name under heaven by which you must be saved” was a challenge to the Worldly authorities as the usual proclamation of Caesar was “there is no other name under heaven by which you must be saved” referring to Caesar.) Then there was the accusation against Jason and the Christians,
Acts 17:6 But when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some other brothers before the city officials, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, named Jesus!”
The Church does indeed not prosecute, except on those rare occasions when it has to practice interposition, but it does campaign for righteousness. This is something we read about during the run up to the War of American Independence with all those Reformed Pastors prosecuting in the Pulpits the injustice of the Crown against God’s Word.
Your understanding empties the office of the Minister of his needed prophetical role under sovereign Christ. You accuse me of confusing the offices. I accuse you of neutering the office.
3.) Historical examples were properly applied. You just don’t like the implications. The idea that Ambrose didn’t confront Theodosius as a rival magistrate is just ludicrous. Do you think anyone would have listened to Ambrose if he had not been wearing that Bishop vestment? In terms of Hodge maybe we should go w/ A. A. Hodge?
“Christianity should be recognized publicly by this country. Christ should be recognized in the law of our land as the Supreme Ruler of our nation. I am a member of a society striving for this end; the principle is right, whatever our success may be. We should insist that if the State has a right to educate she must not educate in infidel history and philosophy, but, in assuming the educator’s function, must obey the Scripture injunction regarding that function — to train the young in the ‘nurture and admonition of the Lord.'”
A. A. Hodge (1823 – 1886)
19th Century American Reformed Theologian
4.) R2K is a completely novel way of reading Scripture not discovered and developed till Meredith Kline and his chief Romanist trained popularizer David Van Drunen. Van Drunen himself has admitted that it is a novel way of reading Scripture. Just go away. I’ve gone round and round with you poor souls so often that I can age myself in terms of the years I have been over this.
R2K is pure heresy.
5 Affirming R2K emasculates the Church and guarantees that the competing wicked ideologies present in the culture (Cultural Marxism, WOKEism, CRT,liberation theology, etc.) will over-run the public square (common realm) because God’s people are never hearing the Word of the Lord from the pulpit on this anti-Christ ideologies.
R2K is cowardice, relativism, and heresy. It is a dualistic gnostic soup that is metaphysically incoherent denying the explicit ruling of Jesus Christ over all as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
You chaps are so cowardly the only time you demonstrate any courage is when you are fighting for the position that the Church should be irrelevant.
My pastor is going through some serious physical problems so I don’t know what to say comfortably about the sermon. It was on the chapter in Samuel where David sends his ambassadors to Hanun and they get mistreated for doing well.
So the application and implication of Kirk’s murder was obvious even though Kirk was never mentioned by name, except once by someone else during an earlier congregational prayer.
I can only guess because it hasn’t been communicated directly, that my pastor is in agreement with Jackson and he believes that loving God and loving us means he stays in his lane, or sphere to use fancier wording. So it’s from a sincere heart of love that he doesn’t provide applications of evil such as marxism even though we are a university church whose stronghold is a Marxist mind. He really believes that to do so would be a distraction that over time leads to destruction of the church by not holding fully on sermons about the Bible and abstract and emotional conclusions (ie, his call for us to being known only for loving radically). IOW, stick to expositional teaching and trust God for the outcomes.