Though Irons seems to do what I call the (neo) Kuyperian-Kabuki dance as he eschews Modern forms of institutional and objective transformationalism and suggests the more relational and subjective Po-Mo version of it (“The best way to make a difference is to engage in personal evangelism, to get involved in real relationships with people, to pray that God would change people’s hearts, and to continue our efforts at offering counseling and adoption services. It’s ultimately a cultural issue, and the culture won’t be changed by legislation or by getting more conservative judges. I think the Lord is glad that the political sword is proving ineffective. Perhaps we’ll be more inclined to pick up that other sword we’ve locked away in the cabinet and allowed to get rusty — the sword of the Spirit.”), it is nevertheless good to hear someone like Irons get away from the painfully irrelevant and two-dimensional approach to his political duties in this small quarter of the KoM called America.
True, the Kabuki dance’s implication to dump wholesale the concern for laws and institution for pure personal relationalism is akin to telling the local magistrate to take the laws off the books and just rely on man’s efforts to better himself. (I don’t know about your sheriff, but I think mine would tell me to break the pill in half next time.) In other words, while I eschew modern forms of Christian transformationalism, that doesn’t mean sane and secular efforts to effect law should be ignored—so much for those who say I am antinomian. It’s just that there is a difference between looking to those efforts to effect a “heaven-on-earth” cultural utopia and soberly ordering society, a work in which one ought to be prepared for his own viewpoints to potentially lose the day and not be tempted to threaten his fellow citizens with divine sanction. Even so, Irons seems to at least grasp the principles of relevancy. Statements that “abortion is irrelevant” show the ability to be discerning enough to know that certain issues just aren’t a priority, even amongst those whose cultural and political conclusions have a vested interest in perpetuating an outdated and activist approach to voting.