Brian Walsh and Polemics

Brian Walsh has a lot of good things to say. That said, Brian Walsh enjoys playing the role of the gad-fly which bites, draws blood and considers that a great victory. Like a gad-fly, I find him annoying. His contemporary lectures and talks have a useful role to play, but they serve, at best, as food to other, higher, creatures and at worst to spread pestilence. Now, call me old-fashioned, but I have very little use for people who -- even in rhetoric -- equate hell with Scripture. I consider the words themselves sacred after all.

Subversion of the empire is not what Paul writes about; it is what Brian Walsh loves to talk about with considerable bravado and as one who has the luxury of never having to deal with the hard choices that those of us in the real world have to make. It is certainly not good pastoral leadership to say to someone about to enter the public service, or who is considering running for public office to say "to hell with Romans 13". Should Namaan say "to hell with the Empire?" Or should he, as Elisha counsels him, "go in peace" even though he knows he will have to kneel before idols? Paul is writing about living as embodiments of kingdom of God, which is a very different thing than subverting the empire. There might be overlap between the two, but Paul does not write with the goal of subverting the empire. That's an anachronism and someone of his considerable intellect should recognize that. And to those who would say "it's just rhetoric" I would reply: it's not even good rhetoric. It's sloganeering mixed with a sneer.

Now, what I'm really interested in not so much to debate the usefulness of empire in discussions about the proper Christian response (Though I think we could have a good discussions about that here on this blog) but whether or not it's appropriate to respond with such fervor to such pieces of writing. Is it better to go the route of Yoda, or is there a place for polemics?