基督徒的“兩國論”什麽是“兩個國度”？
David
VanDrunen訪談 駱鴻銘摘譯：
（譯按：“兩個國度”的神學觀，最近在改革宗圈子裡引起許多爭議。以下是其中的一種看法。）
加州西敏神學院的系統神學教授David VanDrunen最近接受Credo Magazine的訪問，談到他對“兩個國度”的教義（Two Kingdoms Theology）的看法。其中兩點特別能解釋什麽是兩個國度：
其一。
我喜歡這樣來簡短描述“兩個國度”的教義：上帝用兩種截然不同的方式，透過祂的兒子統管全世界。作爲造物主和這個世界的維繫者，上帝統管自然界的秩序、世上一般的機構和人類社會的組織。這是透過普遍恩典所完成的，爲的是保存這個世界的生命，使之能繼續存活。作爲救贖主，上帝也透過拯救的恩典統管著末世性的國度。祂藉著宣講聖經，呼召一群特殊的百姓歸向自己。作爲基督徒，我們同時參與在這兩個國度之中，但是不應當把二者的目的相互混淆。作爲投身於非常豐富的聖約神學的改革宗神學家，我認爲根據聖經中的聖約來看這兩個國度是有幫助的。洪水之後，在上帝與挪亞所立的約當中，上帝應許要保存自然界和人類社會的秩序（不是要救贖他們！），這包括所有的人類和所有的生物。但是上帝也設立了一個特別的、救贖的聖約。這是透過亞伯拉罕、透過摩西和以色列，如今是和教會所設立的新約來完成的。我們基督徒同時參與在挪亞之約和新約當中（要記得上帝與挪亞所立的聖約會一直持續到地球被毀滅爲止），也透過它們，參與在上帝對世界的雙重統治——或上帝的兩個國度之中。
關於基督與文化的關係，有一種被稱為“改造文化派”（transformationist）的看法。有許多人擁護這種看法，對此也有許多不同的定義。基於這些分歧的看法和定義，我常常懷疑這種分類法到底有什麽用處。如果“改造文化”（transformation）的意思只是說我們作爲基督徒，要在生活所有的領域努力做到最好，並且盡力對我們的職場，鄰舍等等，造成好的影響，我就屬於“改造文化派”。但是人們通常對“改造文化派”的定義是基督要在此時此地救贖人類社會的組織和結構，換句話說，就是要根據基督救贖國度的模式來改造它們（譯按：這種看法認為福音包括要透過救贖社會文化來建立神的國，故教會應當積極參與社會改造）。我相信兩個國度的教義所提供的方法，明顯和這種方法不同。例如，如果基督徒遵循的是兩個國度的教義，他不會爲救贖這個國家（不管其涵義是什麼）而努力，而是認識到上帝保存這個國家有其良善的目的，並努力幫助這個國家在神暫時的、攝理的目的裏，在最佳的情况下運轉。
其二，我不認爲教會在選舉年的責任，和其他任何時候有什麽不同。教會應當宣講聖經中神全部的計劃（其中當然包括教導有關國家，人類生活的價值，婚姻，對待窮人，等等）。但是聖經沒有設定政治政策的議題，或擁護一個特定的政黨，因此，在這點上，教會應當保持沉默，因爲它沒有基督的授權，代表基督說話。而在支持某一個政黨或候選人，或公共平臺或策略上，個別的基督徒有自由可以運用上帝給他們的智慧，做出他們所相信的、一般來說會爲社會帶來最大好處的决定。政治總是需要妥協，要選擇最少的惡，並拒絕讓少數人的利益影響到大多數人的利益。基督徒對這些事情會有不同的判斷，而教會基於審慎的理由，不應當試圖介入，捆綁信徒的良心。這樣想也許會有幫助：在基督徒飽受政治廣告、標語和看板的轟炸下，在主日可以跨越這種對政治的狂熱，而和上帝救贖的百姓聚集在一起，來慶祝他們在天上的國籍，該是多麽令人振奮的事啊。他們與基督的聯結，應當超越所有的國家、種族和政治上的分歧。
譯按。Tim Keller 的看法總結在下面的博客文章中：
Coming
Together on Culture: Theological Issues
Coming
Together on Culture, Part 2: Practical Issues
附原文如下：
The
first:
I
like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God
through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As
creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary
institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common
grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer,
God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life
and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as
he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the
Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not
confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian
devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two
kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah
after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society
(not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living
creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships
with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new
covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants
(remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth
endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.
The
“transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many
people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a
category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians,
should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy
impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what
people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and
institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we
should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive
kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that
is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a
Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of
the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for
good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those
temporary and provisional purposes.
The
second:
I
don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year
from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole
counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the
state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But
Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular
political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no
authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular
party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the
liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe
will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands
compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the
better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about
these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’
consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this
way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements,
slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to
step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people
to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that
transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.
