"It's been my observation that Reformed men who justify silence in the public square under the rubric of `two-kingdom theology' and `the spirituality of the church' are usually unconcerned about the sexual anarchy, oppression, and bloodshed of innocents that has long been the foundation of our civil compact here in these United States. In my experience they simply don't give a rip.
It's self-evident on any terms a civilized man accepts for the foundation of common law that sending wives, sisters, and mothers off to fight our enemies is evil, but see if spirituality-of-the-church men address the civil magistrate condemning this evil? It's self-evident on any terms a civilized man accepts for the foundation of common law that ripping unborn babies apart in their mothers' wombs is an evil as great as the world has ever known, but check out whether the two-kingdom men you know write about it on their blogs, speak against it in the public square, preach against it in their pulpits, or show up at the killing place to lift a finger to stop it."
Please leave your guess in the comments section below. PLease, no google searches. Answer to follow next week.
As many of you guessed, this is from Tim and David Bayly's blog, "Out of our Minds Too" and can be found here: The Bayly Blog
Darryl Hart responds here: Hart's response
Oh, and here's a link to David VanDrunen's book on medical ethics where he condemns abortion and euthanasia (something "radical" 2K people are supposedly not interested in doing). VanDrunen's book on medical ethics
Saturday, November 13, 2010 at 09:17AM 
“Like many New Testament scholars, I am largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the fathers and reformers. The Middle Ages, and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had plenty to say about Paul, but I have not read it.” 
This remarkable admission is from N. T. Wright's Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress, 2006), 13.
