Ron Paul is to national politics what R2K is to the salt and light of the Church. Both Paulites and R2Kites have never seen a battle they want to fight. So instead they come up with sophisticated reasons why Little Round Top is the wrong hill to defend and Colonel Chamberlain's bayonet charge was over the top. The wrong man led the wrong troops in the wrong charge using the wrong weapons at the wrong time and the wrong location.Well, as someone who is a supporter of Ron Paul and a holder of the Reformed Two Kingdoms perspective (that is what the "R" stands for, right?), I found this very interesting. Anyone who has read our blog for any length of time knows that we are not afraid of a fight. For example, I can think back to a post I did in which I "battled" both the Federal Vision and Lee Irons. In fact, the sheer fact that I am writing now shows that I am not just "battling against battling." I am battling the fact that those in the R2K camp do stand up for truth.
In fact, watch these men closely and you find the only battle they're willing to fight is the battle opposing battles. But of course, I use the words 'battle' and 'fight' quite loosely because both require courage. I don't write this to demean them, but so readers will see the connection between their techniques, commitments, and character.
Or as another example, take my friend Jason Stellman who has stood up against the Federal Vision in his presbytery. He is an out spoken advocate of the Two Kingdoms view and someone who is known for having a backbone. In fact, at times, he is accused (wrongly I would say) of having too much backbone.
If the Baylys want to dialogue with those on the other side, putting up inflammatory posts like this one is not the way to do. It seems that those outside the Two Kingdoms view are fond of doing this, but this is not the way to convince those who disagree. All this type of rhetoric does is convince the convinced.