From Daniel McCarthy, “Why the Tea Party Can’t Govern,” American Conservative, Nov/Dec 2013
There was an absolutely natural backlash in the late 1970s against the hasty push from the left for further sexual revolutions. Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality had all gone from being little spoken of and sometimes restricted by law to becoming “rights.” Many Americans, particularly Christians, felt disenfranchised. So they voted. But they did so in reaction: what they were against was always more clear than how they could create an alternative— a modern alternative, not simply a return to an idealized past. Because the emphasis was on negation rather than a creative agenda, the question of what compromises power must make with imperfect reality could be avoided. In “principle,” divorced from practice, one can outlaw every abortion without exception and send homosexuals back to the closet.
Christian conservatives are as well-adjusted as anyone else on these questions in their own lives. But the Christian conservative who accepts sinfulness in reality cannot accept it in theory, and one who tries is liable to be trumped within the community by someone who asserts a harder line. Religious right activists thus radicalize one another and continually refine their ideology—then demand professions of principle from candidates. . . .
From the Moral Majority to the Tea Party, a right forged in opposition offers only images of a mythic past in place of present economic and cultural realities. Instead of a modern conservatism competing against what is in fact a creaky liberalism—whose corporate cronyism and cultural atomism have engendered wide dissatisfaction—we have only the conservatism of what was versus the liberalism of what is. This accounts for why the Republican Party, even as it has grown more right-leaning and “extreme,” has failed for 25 years to nominate a conservative for president. No one can take the no-compromise ideology of libertarianism or Christian conservatism and make it electorally viable, let alone a philosophy of government. Rather than find leaders who can build plausible resumes in elected office before running for president, the activists of the right lend their support to symbolic candidacies that represent negative ideals—the ideals not of government but of protest. Because ideological conservatives cannot accept the compromising complexities of a positive philosophy, the Republican old guard wins every time. The result is doubly perverse: instead of a serious conservative who speaks softly, Republicans wind up with unprincipled figures who become shrill in attempting to appeal to the right.
I guess the problem may be in wanting to be not conservative but Christian. Then when will the critics of 2k ever orm a Christian Political Party that eschews any pretense with compromise?
Old Life 
Hey, Darryl: How come Tim Keller’s “Why I Like The PCA” article gets its own section on this site? Doesn’t he get enough special attention already?
And how come Bryan Cross (no relation to the 1980s Christian rock bands White Cross, Barren Cross, and Neon Cross) gets to put his head shot next to his posts? And after he’s dead will they paint a halo over his hat and hang it up at Chapel of The Little Flower. There’s only a blank silhouette next to this one.
As for Daniel McCarthy, don’t mind him much. He used to be a paleoconservative and has drifted with his magazine into a sort of grumpy centrism. Meh.
LikeLike
Wholesome the headshots come from wordpress and their associated account management not Darryl. I get to use my icon because I set it up, Bryan gets to use his for the same reason. You could set your own up.
LikeLike
Justin Martyr, radical 2Ker– no stance or appeal to transform or enlist gov’t to further the work of the church or build a Christian ‘civil’ society…
First Apology, Chapter XVII — CHRIST TAUGHT CIVIL OBEDIENCE.
And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, “Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?” And they said, “Caesar’s.” And again He answered them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, “To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required.”
LikeLike
R.C. Sproul Jr. blogs on “R2K”:
What is R2K Theology?
from R.C. Sproul Jr. Nov 16, 2013 Category: Articles
An aspiring theology wonk can often find himself swimming in a bewildering ocean of acronyms. Since we no longer debate our theology over the course of hours, but often do so using only our thumbs, shorthand is valuable, but challenging. Just when you realized the role of iaoc to npp and fv (that is, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision), now comes R2K.
The acronym is short for one of two things, depending on how favorable one is to the position. Some use it for Reformed Two Kingdom, others for Radical Two Kingdom. Those who embrace the Reformed Two Kingdom view insist first that their position is the mainstream of the Reformed tradition. It affirms that God’s law and His Son rule the world in two related but distinct ways. The broader reign is over the created, or natural order. The function of the state is to support and operate under “natural law.” The Bible is of little use in this context as it was given to God’s people specifically. Natural law was given for all men everywhere.
Jesus reigns in a second kingdom as well, in the church. Here His focus is more direct—the church is to be about the business of Word and sacrament. His will is that the church proclaim the good news of Jesus. The Word of God is preached, showing us our need for a redeemer. The revealed law of God, at least insofar as the third use of the law remains on the table, is for God’s people in the church, and in the church alone. What the church is not to do, however, as the church, is speak into the first kingdom. The church, according to this view, is neither called, equipped, nor permitted to prophecy against the sins of those outside the kingdom.
At their best, those who espouse R2K theology rightly reject the common temptation among evangelicals to wrap up our theological convictions in the American flag, to confuse God’s kingdom with these United States, and the temptation common to some Reformed to insist that the tiniest detail of a given government policy debate comes equipped with a peculiarly perspicuous proof-text to tell us what to do. Sometimes we end up saying, “Thus sayeth the Lord” when we ought to be saying, “Our understanding of the implication of this text leads us to believe option A is more wise than option B.”
At their worst, however, R2K theology can silence the prophetic voice of the church. While many R2K advocates would be comfortable with individual Christians speaking to the great moral issues of our day, the church is forbidden to do so. When the state punishes a landlord for refusing to rent to fornicators, the church cannot speak. When the state engages in empire building, waging unjust wars across the globe, the church cannot speak. Worst of all, when the state uses its God-given sword to protect those who murder the unborn, the church cannot speak.
The church is the bride of Christ, called to be a help suitable to the second Adam as He fulfills the dominion mandate, bringing all things under submission. She is not confined to the garden, but goes forth into the jungle, wherever He goes to glorify His name, to make visible His reign. She speaks what He speaks, to all who would stand against Him. She speaks for the downtrodden, for those unable to speak for themselves. May we who are Reformed ever affirm this radical truth—there is one King, and one Kingdom.
What is R2K theology? was originally published at RCSproulJr.com
LikeLike
Erik, funny how little power 2k has — which sort of proves the point — since the prophets keep speaking.
LikeLike
Yeah, when I tried to talk to the Baylys I left with a lifetime ban and damaged eardrums.
LikeLike
from R.C. Sproul Jr. Nov 16, 2013 Category: Articles
At their worst, however, R2K theology can silence the prophetic voice of the church. While many R2K advocates would be comfortable with individual Christians speaking to the great moral issues of our day, the church is forbidden to do so. When the state punishes a landlord for refusing to rent to fornicators, the church cannot speak. When the state engages in empire building, waging unjust wars across the globe, the church cannot speak. Worst of all, when the state uses its God-given sword to protect those who murder the unborn, the church cannot speak.
Ouch.
LikeLike