Two Kingdoms" view of church-state relations (hence a "2Ker"). That might not seem particularly interesting unless you know that it is not the majority Presbyterian view. In fact, there is a significant stream of Theocratic thought in Presbyterianism history which certainly continues to be advocated in modern American Presbyterianism. The more theologically disparate Evangelical movement in America also inherited aspects of the Christian Theocratic tradition. In contemporary political discussions, this often leads to comparisons of "the Religious Right" with the "Islamist" movement. On the face of it, I'm sure such comparisons are irksome to political activists on the Christian Right (I was going to say "conservative Christians", but not all conservative Christians are activists; Lutherans in particular tend to the oppsite extreme, political quietism). But to the extent that Christian activists deny the validity of the separation of church and state, they do share a common conceptual framework with Islamists in the area of political thought and action, although I would immediately stress that the New Testament expressly forbids the use of violence to further Christian goals, a prohibition which explains why the notion of a "Christian terrorist" is an oxymoron.
Anyway, here's Hart reflecting on this subject after a trek through Turkey, which was established as a secular Muslim-majority state by Mustafa Kemal after WWI (Australians will note with interest that Mustafa Kemal was the commander of the Turkish forces who repelled the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli in 1915):
"The ...history of Enlightenment and secularization ...makes the Religious Right and political Islam stand out. Both groups in different ways oppose secularization. Both also do so by appealing to the sacred texts of their faith. These similarities are what invite comparisons of activist evangelicals and political Muslims, no matter how unflattering or inflammatory. In fact, although born-again Protestants have not blown-up any buildings – wrong headed associations with the Christian militia and Timothy McVeigh notwithstanding – evangelicals’ continued reliance on older religious foundations for civil authority may look odder than political Islam considering that American Christians have so much more experience with alternatives to confessional states (or theocracy) than Muslims do. The United States, a secular nation hallowed by evangelicals, has almost 250 years under its belt and it stands as one of the chief alternatives to Christendom’s political theology. In contrast, the break up of the Ottoman Empire is still less than a century old and places like the Republic of Turkey are still trying to figure out the nature of secular democracy in a Muslim society. Evangelicals’ experience with secular politics may explain their reluctance to use violence. But it makes all the more unusual born-again Protestants’ appeal to the Bible as the norm for politics and social order. To unpack this anomaly a brief comparison of Christian and Muslim understandings of secularity may be useful.
As Bernard Lewis, among many others, has written, secularity in its modern sense – “the idea that religion and political authority, church and state are different, and can or should be separated – is, in a profound sense, Christian.” The locus classicus of this idea is Christ’s own instruction, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” [Matt. 22:21]. This was directly the opposite of Roman and Jewish conceptions where either Caesar was God or God was the monarch. For Muslims, God was the supreme authority with the caliph as his vice-regent. What makes the contrast with Islam all the more poignant is that Christianity stood between Judaism and Islam chronologically such that Muslims could well have appropriated Christian notions of secularity. As it happened, Islam followed theocratic models of the ancient near east. Christianity, of course, made social order a lot more complicated as later disputes between popes and emperors demonstrated. Indeed, discomfort with secularity often arises from a legitimate desire for greater moral and political coherence. But for whatever reason, Christ himself apparently favored a social arrangement that differentiated spiritual matters from temporal ones."
I would say you can read it all here but I've quoted it all, although you may like to check out the comments or follow the blog.
I've created a new label for this post, "Crypto-Lutheranism", which I'll use to identify positive Lutheran influence upon the Reformed.