Jason Stellman is a prominent 2k proponent. His recent book on 2k was plugged by fellow 2k cohort Scott Clark.
I’m must say I’m puzzled by where 2k proponents draw the line. Over at his blog (Creed Code Cult), Stellman has lots of op-ed pieces under headings like “American Babylon,” “Politics,” and “Pop Culture.”
Yet Stellman is an ordained minister. Indeed, a PCA pastor. If he really believes in church/state separation, why doesn’t he stay on his side of the wall?
Why is he venturing into the public domain to opine on public policy? Why does he have a foot in both camps? Shouldn’t he keep his moral, political and socioeconomic views to himself?
Isn’t this a case of the church telling the state what the state ought to do? So where's the big difference between what Stellman does at his blog, and what Tim and David Bayly do at theirs?
The main difference I can see is that the Bayly brothers are morally consistent. (Not to mention that they have better judgment.)
Is it just that he compartmentalized his piety? That he ventures into the culture wars outside of church, but not inside of church?
Is that what the distinction between cult and culture amounts to? A piece of furniture? If you say it behind the pulpit, that’s confounding the kingdoms, but if you wait until you step outside the four walls of the church, then that somehow upholds the key distinction? Stick to the Great Commission Sunday Morning, but opine on politics, foreign policy, the culture wars, &c., throughout the week.
Is a piece of furniture all that separates the two kingdoms? And it just depends on what side of the furniture you’re on?
Fact is, you can’t even speak to church/state relations unless you climb over the wall. Is there some reason that 2k ministers should exempt themselves from their own sanctimonious strictures?