Mennonite Weekly Review

Two-kingdom theology in a political speech? There it was in a 2006 quote by then-Sen. Barack Obama. He said the Sermon on the Mount is “so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”

The future president was acknowledging what few Christians admit: There’s serious tension between Jesus’ sermon of peace and his modern followers’ support of national violence.

Of those who do recognize the contradiction, many solve it with two-kingdom theology.

One way to apply that theology — the way many Anabaptists historically have chosen — is to draw a sharp line between the church and the world. In God’s kingdom, the church, members follow Jesus’ ideal and try to love their enemies. They may even shun the world, where people do not follow Jesus’ ideals and are not expected to.

This is the way of separation and withdrawal. Some Anabaptist groups still maintain it. But mainstream Mennonites generally have moved away from a strict two-kingdom view. We’ve decided the division between the church and the world is not an unbridgeable chasm. We have become politically engaged, believing that Christians actually live in both kingdoms. Then we try to sort out the uncertainties and gray areas that come from having a foot in each.

One of the questions is: Should we expect national policies to match the ethics Jesus requires of his followers? Mostly, we don’t. We accept what Obama acknowledged in that 2006 speech: Governments won’t be guided by the Sermon on the Mount.

Does that take us back to rigid two-kingdom separation? One ethic for the world, another for Christians? No. Both parts of our two-kingdom identity require us to seek what is good for all people. In that search, we use both moral and practical reasons in deciding what to expect of government. Torture is one example. We decry former U.S. officials’ approval of torture primarily because it was morally wrong, but also for practical reasons: It did not produce good intelligence, broke laws and treaties, damaged the nation’s reputation and abetted terrorism by making more enemies.

Nuclear arms control offers another example of intertwined moral and practical considerations. The president has called for a world without nuclear weapons, while admitting such a goal might not be reached in his lifetime. He is promoting a long-term ideal, along with a pragmatic short-term commitment to working for nuclear nonproliferation and arms reduction.

Combinations of idealism and practicality can win broad-based support. The evangelical nuclear-abolition group Two Futures Project counts among its advocates former Secretary of State George Shultz (who says, “Ronald Reagan had a dream of a world without nuclear weapons, and I share that dream”) and urban ministry leader Shane Claiborne (who says, “God does not bless bombs”). A political realist and a spiritual idealist with a common cause show how two kingdoms can connect.