It does sound as if "two kingdoms" would say the church has no role advising the state, or even speaking out toward it (e.g. re abortion)From the link, post 29#
Iron Ink :: Theocracy Simply Explained ... The "R" in R2Kt Exposed >>>
The “radical” in Radical two Kingdom theology is found in the reality that the R2Kt folks deny that the church has any role in advising the state, or that the state has any role in protecting the church. Their vision is one where the state is responsible to God to make sure that no church, faith, or religion becomes ascendant in the culture. For the R2Kt guys God desires that His way and rule never become THE way or rule. Instead what God wants in the Radical Two Kingdom arrangement is that the state keeps all the gods, including Himself, on a level playing field. In short, God turns over His sovereignty to the state to make sure that the state does not allow Him to be God.
I'm not sure it is saying the state has no role protecting the church or that it is responsible "to make sure that no church, faith, or religion becomes ascendant in the culture." That implication doesn't quite seem to come out of the original post recording.
Not to put words in either speaker's mouths here, but I get the sense from the broadcast recording above anyway, that "two kingdoms" means the church doesn't "speak out" to the government, even in cases extraordinary and that Christians don't actively get involved to influence the government (or the culture, or their vocation) for the better, because its not really "their" kingdom.
But they might say the government must protect the church, all religions, and might favor Christianity, but on the basis of popular will. I'm not sure I have a basis for concluding this, so
Perhaps Mr. Clark will address this for us.