My Favorite Marcion

According to Steve Camp:

***QUOTE***

The sheer hypocrisy of the ECB movement is typified in what happened with Frist last week. Dobson and company had courted Frist on several key "moral, family values, prolife issues"; solicited him for public support and comment (JS1); and counted on him to influence other Washington constituents on those same convctions for legislative strength in changing policy. Then he flip/flopped. When someone changes positions dramatically as he did (he also asked for federal funding for his "new" position) that has profound implications on Party affiliations and ECB directly. I think that some ECBers now know "Frist-hand" that the "tie that binds" their allies run only "potomoc" deep. Simply put... they (ECB) got stung.

***END-QUOTE***

Hypocrisy is a very serious charge. It is indelibly imprinted on our minds by Christ’s denunciation of the religious establishment.

So wherein lies the hypocrisy of Dobson & Co.? They supported Frist when he supported them. They supported his agenda when he supported theirs.

Now he has betrayed his supporters. Who’s the hypocrite? Dobson or Frist?

Was King David a hypocrite because he befriended a man who later betrayed him (Ps 41:9)? Was Jesus a hypocrite because Peter and Judas stabbed him in the back? Ditto: St. Paul (2 Tim 4:16)?

BTW, how does the flip-flop of one senator have “profound implications on Party affiliations”? This is not a change in the party platform, is it?

The logical reaction would be to support a better candidate in the upcoming presidential primaries. If Frist has proven that he would make a poor nominee for the GOP ticket, we turn to someone else, that’s all.

***QUOTE***

This demonstrates perfectly that when unity is rooted foundationally in political posturing as opposed to biblical certainty, this kind of thing is to be expected--and will happen again.

***END-QUOTE***

Who is guilty of political posturing? “Posturing” is a synonym for hypocrisy. Is Mr. Camp accusing Dobson and Co. of political “posturing”? Does Mr. Camp have any inside information he’d like to share with the rest of us that Dobson & Co. are duplicitous in their methods and/or objectives? Is this just a pose on their part? They don’t really care about key "moral, family values, prolife issues"?

***QUOTE***

Hopefully, this will serve as a wake up call for the ECB movement to primarily address issues in the future with a proper mandate: biblically; and by proper means: the local church.

***END-QUOTE***

First of all, I and others (notably, Jus Divinum) have repeatedly presented a Biblical basis for ECB. But when you answer Camp on his own grounds, he turns very slithery on you—just like a politician.

Secondly, pay close attention to what he is saying. He isn’t merely attacking cobelligerence. No, he’s attacking political activism, per se. The proper means of addressing social issues is within the local church.

This is yet another example of his fundamentally antinomian, Anabaptist, and anarchistic outlook.

ECB is just a stalking-horse for Camp. His real target is the very idea of Christian involvement in the democratic process, but he uses ECB as a decoy to gin up opposition to the primary target.

***QUOTE***

Politics is the art of compromise; biblical Christianity is to deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him.

***END-QUOTE***

This is pious nonsense on stilts. In fact, it’s the sort of thing you’d expect a politician to say: something that sounds swell even though it’s palpably false.

Not every pragmatic compromise is a moral compromise.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/art-of-christian-compromise.html

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was a compromise. The OT provision for divorce was a compromise (Mt 19:8). Paul’s circumcision of Timothy was a compromise (Acts 16:3). The Scriptural position on slavery is a compromise (1 Cor 7:21-22). The duty of the strong brethren towards the weak brethren is a compromise (Rom 14:13-23; 1 Cor 8:9-13).

In fact, the quickest road to hypocrisy is to leave no room for a pragmatic compromise on issues of process rather than principle.

Legalistic churches are hotbeds of hypocrisy because they brook no compromise on doubtful disputations and harmless pleasures. By commanding what is not commanded and forbidding what is not forbidden, they sow a luxuriant seedbed of hypocrisy. You can reap a rich harvest of hypocrisy by being overly strict as well as overly lax.