On Camp's view, you can be 'salt and light' if you live out your faith, but by definition participating in the political process of the country in which you live cannot be a living out of your faith! No, that would be 'secular'. I see ;-)
"There is no such thing in Scripture as a 'moral human imperative' that applies to all peoples absent of the gospel."
Here Camp just announces to the world that he is an antinomian, and doesn't believe the law of God applies to all men whatsoever. That is, he undermines what should be the very presupposition of the gospel.
"There can be no meaningful social change or impact apart from the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
That's right! Civil rights came about in this country because all the judges and congressmen believed the gospel! Or, maybe, Camp just thinks that civil rights wasn't a "meaningful social change". I can't tell which proposition is worse.
"Resumes, press releases, and well-nurtured political alliances do not change the world"
Sorry to disappoint, but "well-nurtured political alliances" got us Bush II, and I daresay he's changed the world. Nay, "well-nurtured political alliances" got us victory in WWII, and I think that changed the world. Now, ECB is not identical to the Churchill/Roosevelt relationship in a time of crisis, but surely Camp needs to scale back the nonsensical rhetoric a bit. His generalizations are showing.
"It is against the command of Scripture to partner with an unbelieving world in any kind of spiritual ministry or enterprise. This is what the apostle Paul called “being unequally yoked” (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)."
And Camp's argument that ECB is a "spiritual ministry" is... what?
It's as if Camp hasn't bothered to think through the consistency of his position. He keeps pounding away at how utterly secular and earthly is the whole enterprise of ECB, but then he turns around and tells us it is a form of "spiritual ministry"! If Camp wishes to hold on to logic, at least one of these fundamental criticisms has got to go.
BTW, Camp still hasn't bothered to define what constitutes "yoking". Perhaps he should watch some oxen in the fields some day :-) Last I checked, Bill Donohue wasn't constraining or coercing Al Mohler from walking away any time he likes.
"Evangelical Cobelligerents fault and accuse nonbelievers in society for living like nonbelievers."
I'm aghast to discover that some gospel preachers do this too, as does God in his Word ;-)
"Let me ask the ECBs a question: if you didn't know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, what would you be living like? And then, would you want someone to picket you, boycott you, petition against you, vilify you, strong arm you, coerce you, legislate against you – or would you rather someone had come to you with the gospel of grace and walked with you as your neighbor and explained how to have eternal life by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone?"
But why would I want eternal life if I'm happy in my sins? Maybe Camp thinks you can preach the gospel without informing people of their sins, or offending them in any way. That would fit with his antinomianism quite well :-)
"Co-belligerents really distrust the Sovereignty of God in His working through the governments and the leadership of those governments that He by His own choosing, purposes and will has raised up in power to accomplish whatever He has predetermined them to accomplish."
More slander from Camp against his fellow Christians. Apparently, if you 'trust' God, you must believe that he works quite apart from any means whatsoever, and therefore you must never expend any effort in means that God could use. I guess when Camp fixes his food each day, he 'distrusts' God ;-)
Hey, let's take the "Sovereignty of God" a bit further: we distrust God when we preach the gospel, because God can predestine people to heaven quite apart from our help, thank you very much ;-)
"There is an amazing verse of Scripture on this theme found in 1 Peter 4:15. He says, "Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler." That phrase troublesome meddler literally means a "political agitator.""
Unfortunately, Camp can't manage to find a single reputable commentator who gives any scholarly support for why that hapax legomenon must be translated as "political agitator". No English translation of 1Pe 4:15 translates the word as "political agitator". Is this a marvelous coincidence, or, perhaps, a conspiracy to deny what is obvious to Camp? :-)
Here's what Thomas Schreiner says in his recent (2003) commentary on this verse: "The fourth word represents one of the most difficult interpretative problems in the New Testament. This word, translated 'meddler' by the NIV, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, nowhere in the Septuagint, and nowhere in other Greek literature before 1 Peter... though certainty is impossible, a reference to being a busybody seems most probable. Peter wanted believers to refrain from acting tactlessly and without social graces" (The New American Commentary, vol. 37, pp. 224-225).
Somehow, I think Camp wants his criticism of ECBers from 1Pe 4:15 to run a bit deeper than this ;-)
It would be interesting to see how ECBers are 'busybodies' but Camp's blog is not, seeing as they both seek to hold public figures to the standards of Scripture (whether doctrinally [in the case of Camp's blog] or morally [in the case of ECBers]). Notice in particular that whatever Camp wants to make of 1Pe 4:15, Peter does not make a distinction between expressing political concerns and expressing theological concerns. All activities are to be done without being "troublesome meddlers" (NASB). I submit to Camp that whatever standard he uses here to make 1Pe 4:15 rule out the ECBers, it would also rule out most of the theological contention that Camp promotes on his blog against other Christians. Is it consistent for Camp to promote theological agitation again and again, and then turn around and use 1Pe 4:15 against ECBers?
Perhaps Camp is really saying that the Peter teaches we can't hold elected public officials accountable through lawful means ;-)
"We are not to be seen in the culture as ones who would disrupt the political process and its leadership to forward our own moral or spiritual agenda."
That's right! Christians lawfully participating in the political process would be to "disrupt the political process". Yeah, that makes sense ;-)
"Even in exile under Babylonian captivity the Lord instructs His people how to live. Notice, He doesn’t call them to organize and overthrow their captors."
That's right! ECBers are calling Christians to "overthrow their captors"! What an accurate assessment of their message! No, no, not slanderous at all! ;-)
"Evangelical Cobelligerents say they exist to protect our religious rights. This is spiritual smoke and mirrors. First, we don’t have any religious rights to violate"
Quick, someone send Camp a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps Camp will next instruct black Christians that they have no civil rights. Makes about as much sense...
"I realize that this is a difficult way of thinking in our times, but as Christians we only have one right—to have no rights."
And, as we all know, Paul never appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen (Ac 16:37; 22:25), because -- remember, class -- we have no rights ;-) Perhaps Camp got Thomas Jefferson to cut those offending passages out of his Bible ;-)
"One of the most tragic fallouts of ECB philosophy is reducing the body of Christ to nothing more than a political force."
That's right! Due to ECB, the body of Christ has been reduced to nothing more than a political force. I don't quite understand it, seeing as how I thought the "Sovereignty of God" and the sure promises of God would preclude such a disaster from happening, but apparently, according to Camp, that is all the church is today! ;-)