Lane Keister has been doing a negative review of Frame’s new book. I haven't followed all the back-and-forth, but this comment (#412) stood out:
March 14, 2012 at 2:22 am
To use an “E2K” theologian’s own example: when talking about the concrete issue of abortion, VanDrunen (in Living in God’s Two Kingdoms) explains the honest discussions two Christians can have (who obviously agree on the sinfulness of taking life and the horror of abortion) when discussing how abortion is handled in the political arena. It becomes a wisdom issue over which sincere Christians can disagree. He hypothetically defends both sides, but since I doubt you need the other half of that conversation, one question he raises is whether or not legalizing abortions would cut down on unsafe practices like “back-alley abortions.” In any case, the takeaway of the discussion is this:
“…even when a moral issue may be quite clear biblically, individual Christians’ attempts to live consistently with biblical teaching in concrete areas of politics and public policy remain matters of discretion and wisdom for which there is no single Christian approach that the church can impose upon the conscience of believers.” LiG2K, pg. 202
Are Hart and VanDrunen seriously suggesting that Christians can reasonably defend legalizing abortion to make it safe? That safety justifies legalizing abortion? Isn’t that the NARAL rationale? Coat hangers and back-alley abortions?
Safe for whom? Clearly not the unborn baby.
But if abortion is wrong, why is it the duty of gov’t to ensure the safety of the wrongdoer?
For instance, if a sniper wants to shoot schoolchildren, should we legalize his activity to make it safer for the sniper? Is this 2k statecraft taken to its logical conclusion?
I’m afraid the debate over 2K reminds me of the Kirchenkampf. On the one hand the position of John Frame, Scott Klusendorf, and the Bayly brothers is analogous to the Barmen Confession, the Confessing Church, and its members (e.g. Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rudolf Bultmann, Wilhelm Busch, Ernst Käsemann, Hermann Maas, Friedrich Niemöller), who resisted the Third Reich.
On the other hand the position of Hart is analogous to the Arierparagraph, the Reichskirche, and its members (e.g. Paul Althaus, Friedrich Gogarten, Walter Grundmann, Emanuel Hirsch, Gerhard Kittel, Georg Wunsch), who supported or capitulated to the Third Reich.