church should not speak out against patent evils like the racial slavery of the Antebellum South. Horton concluded in a spirit that seemed to be echoed by many of the faculty present (at least those with whom I spoke afterwards). He noted that while the two kingdoms perspective is often portrayed as a position in conflict with moderate neo-Calvinism, in reality the perspectives are less polar opposites than points on a common spectrum. Once one looks past prominent rhetorical and linguistic differences it can often be difficult to determine what in practice is actually being disputed. And indeed, when it came to the greatest dangers threatening Reformed believers in their cultural and political engagement the members of the panel were in significant agreement. That is a point worth thinking about as this conversation moves forward. The fuss comes from serious differences (especially introduced by neo-Calvinism as VanDrunen's NL2K book makes clear in the late chapters where he shows that Kuyperians blurred lines between Christ's redemptive and providential work). The fuss also comes from the way neo-Cal's assert the antithesis. Looks like a good opportunity was missed to clarify rather than impersonate Rodney King. Richard, it will be available at some point. I'll try to keep tabs on that. But you'll quickly see it was not a "Kumbaya" moment at all. It was refreshingly amicable, forthright, and charitable. However, it did illustrate that what often passes for "the" two kingdoms position or "the" neo-Calvinist position are actually extreme positions held by