Zrim's real problem with what Pastor Scott did seems to be that Zrim thinks that Christians have some kind of moral obligation not to disrupt the worship of idolators. Zrim writes:
I couldn’t help but have a few questions. There are plenty of religious outfits and organizations that tout themselves as channels of Christian and religious orthodoxy even here in Little Geneva that are also far removed from Reformed orthodoxy, from your usual Roman Catholic churches to your Mormon and Jewish Temples, to name just several. Would anyone think of showing up in the middle of their public services and disrupting them in such a bold way? Is there anything unbecoming about what Rodriguez did? Does it matter? Is it possible that Rodriquez is just as given to wanting to be the center of attention as Muldoon might be? Is there a difference between vigorously opposing that which opposes the gospel and singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism? Is this really only about preserving the true gospel and protecting people from being sucked into the cultish maneuvers of wily profiteer and religious wing nut? Is there a biblical justification for this kind of confrontation?First of all, Zrim should enlighten himself about the particular circumstances surrounding the clip. It was not about ego, but about protecting the flock against the suggestion from Muldoon that Pastor Scott approved of what was going on.
Second, he was invited to speak. He spoke. If I were invited to speak at a Jewish service, Roman Catholic service, or Mormon service, I hope I would be as bold as he was. When we get opportunities to debate these folks, we take that opportunity.
Third, there is Biblical justification. Not only do we have the example of Jehu, but look at Paul the apostle not only at Areopagus but many times in the Jewish synagogues.
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
What we really see in E2k is liberalism. The E2kers of Zrim's stripe would be as scandalized by Paul as they are by Pastor Scott. Of course, they wouldn't be so manly as to actually state that Paul is wrong to go into the synagogues and reason with them there, but they would question his motives. It's not very post-modern of Paul to assume that it's ok for him to go into those synagogues and disrupt them in such a bold way. Look at Paul's epistle to the Galatians! Talk about "singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism!"
And forget about Jehu. Is there anything "unbecoming" about his elimination of Baal-worship from the land?
I can see why E2k appeals to post-modern liberals, who think all religions are the same and that there is some kind of "right" to hold religious services, no matter how evil and blasphemous they are. But why would it appeal to any person who has a 66 book canon of Scripture and actually believes what it says? Maybe we should call it "Liberal 2k" instead of "Escondido 2k," since surely there are folks in the faculty at Escondido who would be unwilling to go where Zrim is going here.