Still on the bin Laden issue, I'd like to showcase two blog posts that highlight the stark difference in opinion that inevitably ensues from a non-recognition and a recognition of the two distinct ways (two kingdoms) by which God rules the affairs of men, respectively.
First off, we have this post by James Jordan, a Federal Vision bigwig:
"Now, I have to say that I'm not happy with how Osama was killed. The Bible is fairly clear about this. If we look at the examples in Judges and how Samuel dealt with Agag, it is likely that Osama should have been captured, brought to Washington, and then stood up in front of the President. The President should have then said, 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is my privilege and joy as a minister of vengeance (Romans 13) to avenge my people.' After all, serving as God's avenger is surely a privilege and a joy, for serving in any calling is a privilege and joy. Then the President should have pulled out a .44 Magnum, which as you may know is the world's most powerful handgun, and blown Osama's head off. Yes, it's hard to imagine The Fool doing this, or even his predecessor. But it's what the Bible shows should have been done. It is his job, not the job of some soldier or underling."
Secondly, this one by Michael Horton, a proponent of 2K theology:
"Cultures are the most dangerous when they invoke holy texts for their defense of holy land through holy war. However, Christians have no biblical basis for doing this in the first place. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel. Now is the era of common grace and common land, obeying rulers—even pagan ones—and living under constitutions other than the one that God gave through Moses. As Paul reminds us in Romans 13, secular rulers are given the power of the temporal sword—finite justice—while the gospel conquers in the power of the Spirit through that Word 'above all earthly pow'rs.'"
I think even the light of nature would move the cursory reader to conclude that the former position, the one of Jordan, is a bit wacko. Theologically, though, it loses even more ground. Kim Riddlebarger shares some of the basics of Two Kingdoms theology here, and Michael Horton answers some questions here.