***Camp should have at least included circumstances when the government abuses the rights of other citizens as an example when christians xhould get involved, even more so than if we are the victims. I could come up with many more examples.***
I believe that Steve Camp addressed this VERY issue in his article. Perhaps you need to cite a specific example or reread the article.
***Camp seems to be in the camp of Cal Thomas and MacArthur, who believe that Christians should not atempt to change the world by getting involved in 'causes'. This is one reason I have very little regard for MacArthur or Cal Thomas.***
Actually, I believe that MacArthur's positions is that the world should be changed by the preaching of the gospel and the converting of people to Christ. I'm not sure why you would have very little regard for people who have that belief.
But, as to your direct statement about changing the world, i.e. people, by getting involved in causes, I am not taking any side on the issue of political involvement, but merely asking this very interesting question (also asked in the article): “how do you expect [people] to live apart from regeneration in Christ?”
That's reductionistic thinking to the max. The gospel is conveying what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross, but we do that by both words & deeds. In other words, the gospel is also that Jesus embodied in giving himself away for others before He ever went to the cross.
In the book of Acts, those who cared for widows embodied the gospel. You can't get anyone more "pro-gospel" than the apostle Paul: "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:10)
So what? Do we "change the world's poor" by only "preaching the gospel to them & converting them to Christ?"
Hey, if MacArthur's angle or your angle doesn't cut mustard w/the apostle Paul, don't export it. The poor are not simply "a political cause"; the preborn are our neighbors, they're not simply a "political cause."
And don't hold the victims of political oppression, whether it's done by the govt or "only" allowed by the govt, as hostages to evangelism. In other words, we don't simply choose to "protect" the preborn by only proclaiming the gospel to abortion clinic workers.
The good Samaritan didn't just proclaim the gospel in words to the man in the ditch. He lived it. He risked himself to save the man in jeopardy.
I've also talked to a lay leader in MacArthur's church who flat out said Rahab was wrong to lie to protect the three Hebrew spies. We all know Rahab, the prostitute, not only lied but in essence was in cahoots with those engaging in espionage. I guess this lay leader thought James was wrong to commend Rahab in his book; or tha author of Hebrews to include Rahab in the Hall of Fame of faith.
I've also talked to a lay leader in MacArthur's church who flat out said Rahab was wrong to lie to protect the three Hebrew spies. We all know Rahab, the prostitute, not only lied but in essence was in cahoots with those engaging in espionage. I guess this lay leader thought James was wrong to commend Rahab in his book; or tha author of Hebrews to include Rahab in the Hall of Fame of faith.