Holy Batmania!

Over at Camp’s outfit, “Breuss Wane,” aka Chad Bresson, posted the following comment about my material

<<
You'll have to excuse those of us who simply dismiss the theonomically inclined argument outright without feeling the slightest compunction to answer.
>>

Impressive, isn’t it? Life is so much easier when labels do the work of arguments.

Keep in mind that this comment was made with reference to my “Anarchy in the Camp” essay, in which, unlike Chad, I offered some exegetical arguments for my position. For example, I cited Walter Liefeld’s commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Last time I checked, Liefeld was not your average witchburning theocrat--unless he's been leading a double-life all these years.

So I guess that Chad only holds himself answerable to the 23 subscribers to Kerux magazine. A small world for a small mind.

Incidentally, Vos never hesitated to engage those with whom he disagreed. But I guess attitude is everything.

The caped crusader then followed up that comment with the following:

<<
Because the gospel is inherent to everything that a Christian does in the marketplace of ideas. There is no equivalence to buying a car, or attending a sporting event, or mowing the grass AND engaging the marketplace of ideas. The moment a "philosophy" is involved is the moment "the gospel" becomes involved de facto (whether we admit it or not).
>>

Actually, I agree with Chad about this--if he’s saying what I think he’s saying. But you can take this all-or-nothing outlook in either of two opposing directions: Amish or Kuyperian. I’m Kuyperian.

However, Chad and Camp talk as though they're Amish. Take, once more, this comment by Camp:

<<
Abortion, Gay marriage, etc. are not political problems, but are issues of the heart and are spiritual ones. They need the gospel; not legislation.
>>

Presumably, Chad agrees with that. But while they talk the Amish talk, they don’t appear to walk the Amish walk. For example, Chad makes his living as a journalist.

It’s exceeding strange that a journalist would strike an apolitical pose. Why is a Christian reporting on world events unless he’s interested in cultural engagement? Shouldn’t he be riding around in a horse-and-buggy with a funny hat and a German accent?

At least the Amish have a consistent position in what they preach and practice. They are true to 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as they see it. But Chad seems to have an Amish philosophy with a Kuyperian lifestyle.

Of course, I don’t expect him to explain this to me since, in a good Anabaptist fashion, he doesn’t speak with worldings like me. He only relates to his own kind--you known, the 23 subscribers to…but I’ve said that already.

Yet let’s go back, one more time, to Camp’s statement about same-sex marriage. Well, if we shouldn’t outlaw same-sex marriage, then I guess we shouldn’t outlaw child marriage.

That’s not just a hypothetical. Child-marriage is commonplace in the Muslims world. And when Muslims emigrate to the West, they demand their own laws.

So, should an adult Muslim-American male be allowed to wed and consummate his marriage with a prepubescent girl?

I say “we” shouldn’t, since I assume that Chad and Camp frown on Christians who lobby for this sort of legislation. But if Christians don’t do it, who will?

And while we’re on the subject, what about NAMBLA? What about sodomites adopting children? What about kiddy porn?

Since Chad doesn’t care for “theonomy,” what is his Vossian-cum-Klinean version of social ethics?

Since he’s written off OT ethics tout court, and since he presumably believes that NT ethics are for Christians only (at least, that’s Camp’s position), just where then, between the upper register and the already/not yet, between the Alpha-Author and the Omega-Consummator, between the Cosmic House and the Glory-Tabernacle, between the advent of the Antilord and the parousia of the Glory-Spirit, does he draw the line on unbelievers?

I know where the Amish draw the line. And I know where Rushdoony draws the line.