The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) canceled a recently announced panel on helping pastors deal with polarization — saying the topic was too divisive.
“The concerns that have been raised about the seminar and its topic have been so significant that it seems wisest for the peace and unity of the church not to proceed in this way,” the PCA’s Administrative Committee said Tuesday in canceling the event.
Instead of the panel—which the PCA referred to as a seminar—the PCA will hold a prayer time at the denomination’s General Assembly, scheduled for June 10-14 in Richmond, Virginia.
Leaders of the 393,000-member denomination, which has about 1,600 churches, had last week announced the panel, titled “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The inclusion of author and New York Times columnist David French, a longtime PCA member who recently left the denomination, led to online outrage.
Critics — many from outside the PCA — labeled French, best known for his vocal opposition to Donald Trump, as liberal and divisive and accused PCA leaders of trying to cause “rancor and controversy” over politics. Those critics mostly disagreed with French’s political views.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Ghosted: An American Story” by Nancy French. To donate, haga clic aquí.
Ben Dunson, a PCA minister and founding editor of the American Reformer, a publication that seeks to reform “Christian institutions that have become corrupted by false ideologies and practices,” called French the “most polarizing” panelist the denomination could have chosen.
“I cannot imagine a worse choice to help the PCA through the contentious issues we are facing,” Bunson escribió in opposing French’s presence on the proposed panel, which he said would disrupt the denomination’s “peace and purity.”
Critics also called out bestselling author Nancy French, David French’s wife, for being too critical of the PCA in her new memoir.
David French declined to comment for this story.
The panel would have also included Paul McNulty, the president of Grove City College, a conservative school that published a informe rejecting “wokeness” in 2022, along with a pair of PCA pastors, but their inclusion received little attention relative to French’s.
As American society has become more polarized, religious groups have become increasingly divided along political lines. A majority of white Christians, including Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals, are allied with the Republication Party, while Black Protestants, Hispanic Protestants, nones and non-Christians are allied with the Democratic Party. That means churches are less likely to be politically diverse, a reality that intensified during the Trump and COVID-19 era.
The hostility between parties has also grown in recent decades, with each side believing the other is more “immoral, dishonest and close-minded” than other Americans, de acuerdo a Pew Research.
As a result, voting for the wrong candidate can be seen as a sign of sin or heresy. Cooperating across party lines is often viewed as a betrayal.
The Frenches, along with Christianity Today editor Russell Moore and writer and pastor Curtis Chang, recently launched a project called “The After Party,” designed to bring “Christian virtues like kindness, love and mercy” into political discussions at churches.
Chang said the cancellation of the PCA polarization panel illustrates the problem Christian groups are facing.
“The PCA canceled David because it could not even tolerate hearing from a fellow Christian —David French — who might hold different views from some of its members on various partisan issues,” Chang said. “The PCA canceled David because it is elevating partisan differences over shared fidelity to Jesus.”
Bryan Chapell, the stated clerk of the PCA, did not mention David French by name when announcing the panel’s cancellation but said a panelist had caused controversy. Chapell also apologized for choosing that panelist.
“Had I known some of the ways that the panelist has expressed himself or been understood in past writings, I would have made a different choice for the purposes of this seminar,” he wrote.
Bob Smietana es reportero nacional de Religion News Service.
Spanish 
English
182 Respuestas
Sigh…
I want to encourage everyone in the PCA to listen to “The Good Faith Podcast,” the precursor to The After Party. It is such an excellent example of sane, thoughtful, respectful discussion of politics. I’m so grateful that someone is out there trying to help us approach politics with dignity and respect for our fellow man.
I’m really discouraged that the PCA canceled what would have been a very helpful seminar.
rebeca,
Thank you for your comment- agree totally.
“cause rancor and controversy” – to give French that label and yet support Trump (the ultimate example of rancor) is hypocrisy on another level. I’m sad to know the position of the PCA and Chapell. I thought it was just the SBC.
You assume the group supports Trump just because they disagree with French which is against him. Therefore, your claim of hypocrisy is unfounded. This is the sort of generalization preventing good discussion.
But if you actually push people like Ahmari and others on why they dislike David French, it is precisely because he does not support Trump.
Because it’s all about politics and agenda, right? Jesus in nowhere to be found in the Progressive denominations.
It is imperative that we listen to each other carefully and lovingly. The truth will emerge as we learn to trust each other more than we fear each other.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism
“As an activist, French has benefited from the Trump GOP’s ascendance, but he has kept his hands clean, his soul untainted. As anyone familiar with the Amelia Sedley character in Vanity Fair knows, a kind of airy, above-it-all mentality can supply its own vain satisfactions.
But conservative Christians can’t afford these luxuries. Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.” Sohrab Ahmari, 2019
There is a dividing line between Good and Evil: Luke-warm doesn’t cut it in God’s Kingdom.
David French just doesn’t know it yet.
Dr. Cynthia, David French is anything but lukewarm.
You often mention good and evil – does the line that you draw have conservatives on one side and progressives on the other? In that case, I believe you are allowing evil on one side and excluding good on the other. Good and evil does not fall on political lines – it’s much messier than that. Following the two greatest commandments will lead you to some surprising places, and it’s where the beauty and truth of the Gospel truly shines and comes to life.
I hope you take some time to listen to David French and other politically homeless voices.
Tricia,
Here is a start to answering your question about good and evil. It’s most definitely not about politics, but about doing what is right:
Luke 6:
“6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.
9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”
10 He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.”
This is a great story that contrasts legalism with love. Love should not involve exposing little children to sexually deviant adults by making it legal to do so. Do you agree?
Hmmm? Agree and disagree. Children should be kept from sexually deviant adults. Agreed.
What about the rights of “sexually deviate” people who have children? When should we remove those children from the parents they love?
The point of your passage is the Pharisees were out to get Jesus. Using this passage to condemn – what drag? Disagree.
Instead of “listening and learning from Christ,” they were angry because their goal wasn’t truth and understanding. It was blind furry against Jesus – regardless of His message.
“Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.” Sounds like a tweet or headline from today. Intimidation, hatred, and violence if necessary. Destroy the opposition. Adherence to the group – regardless. Bipartisanship forbidden. Where or where is Nicodemous today?
“We’ve turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference — I understand the mentality — but it’s gotten us nothing. Okay? It’s gotten us nothing while we’ve ceded ground in every major institution in our country. – Don Trump Jr.
It is most certainly about politics and about Trump.
Our God is Omnipotent (all powerful) or He needs a “supposedly” strong man to accomplish His will?
By the way, wimpy Jesus won.
Debra Howard,
Jesus was NEVER wimpy. He was incredibly strong and likely walked miles every day. He was also a carpenter by trade, which meant he knew how to use a “hammer” and he knew how to work with his hands.
He flipped tables, called out demons, and fed thousands. Why anyone would refer to Jesus, the Son of God, as “wimpy” is beyond me.
He restrained his power, but it was his to restrain. He could have zapped everyone into nonexistence in a heartbeat. Definitely not wimpy.
Regarding sexually deviant parents… I pity their children. Children forced to observe sexually deviant adults will grow up with a very perverted view of sexuality.
Regarding whether God needs strong men to accomplish his will…Yes, he does. He also needs His children to accomplish his purposes on earth. We are his hands and feet. We are his voice. We are his earthly representatives. We speak His words when our heart is in his hands.
I am not speaking politically. I am speaking as a believer who loves Jesus and wants to make a difference in this world.
Regarding “exposing children to sexually deviant adults”…
In Christian America, Gods Shining City On a Hill, the age of consent was 10-12 years old until the 1890s. In Delaware it was 8 years old. And even today in Michigan, Missouri and W Virginia it is the “Christian” conservatives who oppose child marriage.
Wouldn’t this be a good place to start protecting children from sexual deviants?
You are so far off-base on this one and so is Ahmari. David French has actually been in the trenches fighting the institutions. A cursory search shows that David French defended Ruth Malhotra in court cases her fight against the progressives at her college.
French is a long-time first-amendment lawyer and National Review writer best known, these days, for his continued opposition to President Donald Trump. Ahmari is an author who caromed from communism to Wall Street Journal-style free-market Republicanism (and from Islam to atheism to Evangelicalism to Catholicism while he was at it) before settling into his current role as a populist-cum-integralist rabble-rouser.
This populist excrement that all the Trumpers support is NOT conservativism by any historic or technical sense of the definition. A simple read of his “manifesto” in First Things in its entirety reveals that. The First Things manifesto begins with sneering references to “individual autonomy” but then moves on to denouncing “the cult of competitiveness,” “free trade,” “economic libertarianism,” “the demands of capital,” “investors and ‘job creators’ “—note the gratuitous scare quotes—and “warmed-over Reaganism.”
Il Duce, Orban, and Putin would be proud.
Cynthia didn’t say anything about Trump so why is it part of your argument? It is well known he is not a principled conservative.
Progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values.
Team Trump understands that more than anybody. He says the Democrats are “communists,” “lunatics,” and “want to kill babies even after they are born.” (All lies.) He maligns and smears every judge who fairly attempts to hold him or his people accountable. His preacher network hold massive rallies with Eric Trump, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. They prophesy that the Democrats are actually demonically possessed and that Satan has a demonic portal above the White House so his demons can come and go as they please. They prophesy “in the name of the Lord God of Israel” that those people “will soon be stricken dead by the Right Hand of the Almighty.”
Trump’s statements and actions are meant to weaken our government, our election process, our friendly democratic NATO alliances, our universities, our public schools and our court system.
Also, everybody knows that civility and decency are not the top values cherished by conservative Christians. We’ve all seen the F*** Joe Biden bumper stickers right next to a Christian one. And we heard Speaker Mike Johnson introduce himself to the nation stating, “If you want to know what I believe about any issue, read the Bible.” Yesterday, he was outside the courthouse of a known abuser and crook who is on criminal trial for illegally cooking the books to hide his illegal payoff to a porn star. Today there are more “Christian” Republicans defending him.
America and the world know that civility and decency are nowhere on the list of values for these people.
Where did Cynthia say anything about Trump? Are your generalizations really a good argument for this discussion? That sure is not a way to be civil. Will you really be satisfied with a result that was obtained in unjust ways just to get your end result?
When Trump supporting Christian conservatives lecture the left on civility and decency you can expect a pushback.
Under Trump that group has become the most uncivil and indecent group driving either party. (Not to mention corrupt)
Again you miss the point. You assume you are talking to Trump conservatives so stop generalizing those who disagree with you. Anyways, you must not have much political context because this is nothing what the radical left has become over the last 40 years. And before you say that the top Democrat leaders did not cause or lead them, they didn’t rebuke them either and now some of them are in Congress. Or are you over looking some of the civil disobedience from the left when republicans won or immoral behavior like Dan Rather falsifying documents?
cinthia-
Interesting that there is not one quote of scripture in your reply. To look at scripture would point to loving people across all political lines and pursuing truth over demonizing the “other” and “enforcing order and orthodoxy.”
And last I checked, it was conservatives who have set out to destroy such legacy institutions as our universities – those universities that have been the most esteemed in the world for GENERATIONS; those same universities that, ironically, many of them attended (and use their influence to make sure their kids are admitted as legacies and/or children of donors)
Marin, neither did you quote scripture. Just because someone doesn’t, doesn’t mean they have no scriptural support in their belief or that they don’t operate within scripture when they engage in politics. And Cynthia really shouldn’t have to show the obvious from scripture when it comes to some of our cultural rot.
I’m curious about your claim that conservatives destroyed universities. What’s your evidence?
My point is that there is no scripture that would support enforcing order and orthodoxy over loving people across political lines and pursuing truth, hence why there was no quote of scripture. What is the greatest commandment, according to scripture? I can tell you it isn’t about orthodoxy and order.
And my evidence is the current status of universities, and how they have been under attack – on public record, and via congressional hearings – by conservative politicians – who themselves are Harvard grads. And we know why. It’s because the “wrong” people are now going (hence why race-based affirmative action is awful, but they were silent about gender-based or legacy and donor policies), and learning the “wrong” things (not reinforcing what THEY believe should be taught), hindering the development of a generation of their mini-mes.
It’s “do what we say or we will destroy you.” But claim only the left does it.
Marín:
Perhaps you, too, have been blinded by politics here. I have been talking about sin, which is no respecter of political party.
I believe it is sinful to plagiarize others’ work. Do you?
I believe it is sinful to attack anyone based on skin color and political stance. Do you?
I believe it is sinful to expose little children to sexual deviance. Do you?
I believe homosexual behavior is sinful. Do you?
I believe anti-Semitic behavior is sinful. Do you?
I believe privileging anyone on a college campus because of skin color is sinful. Do you?
Legacy admittance is often based on financial considerations. I think students should be admitted based on merit alone, not gender, race, or political connections. Any student admitted based on other criteria will likely suffer in multiple ways, including academically.
This conversation began because many Christians see David French as a capitulator to current trends which are not Biblical. His stance on abortion has changed over time. God’s stance has remained the same.
cinthia-
Actually if you look up the history of legacy admission policies, they started around 1919 as a way to limit the number of Jewish and immigrant admits. It was racist and antisemitic – both of which are sins. I am glad my alma mater is FINALLY revisiting its legacy admissions policy. Don’t know why legacies are still ok.
But you are correct that one’s socioeconomic status does help: at Harvard, applicants with the same scores, but who come from households making over $500k, see their admission rate jump by 41%. (why is that ok?)
I don’t get why you only claim it’s sinful to privilege someone based on skin color, yet you’re quiet about gender, veteran status, disability, and sexual orientation. Affirmative action touches on ALL of these. Why only the problem with race? (BTW Black students at Harvard graduate at the same rate as their peers, so perhaps they are qualified? Same for women, who benefit from AA too.)
We actually need to stop acting like there was ever such thing as getting admitted “based on merit alone”, as research will show that other factors have ALWAYS come into play.
We have never had a full meritocracy. Let’s stop with that fantasy.
As for the rest, yes I agree with you that what you list are sins. I also think we should be able to have civil discourse without assumptions and labels being thrown at either side. I was hoping French would get to address this.
Black Christians vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Are they biblical wrong? Or do think your interpretation of what is luke warm encompasses political affiliation?
Bob – I don’t think it’s Biblically wrong (or right) to vote for either party. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Jesus is not beholden to donkeys or elephants.
But as the daughter of Black southern Boomers who are quite conservative but don’t vote Republican, I understand WHY so many Black people vote blue despite being the most socially conservative and church-affiliated voting bloc. I addressed that on a different thread.
There’s a bigger question that needs asking. HOW are you fighting sin/evil? Jesus gives us a few… There’s not doing it yourself – prayer – returning evil with good – forgiveness… there’s even letting the human with free will, choose the wrong option! Or better yet, cleaning up your own house and leaving others’ messes to God. These are actually the most powerful ways, btw…
BUT… many rightwing leaning, claiming ‘conservative’ american christians, most of the GOP, the Christian Nationalists like Ahmari and Trumpism say and push for Means beyond those. They say “Fight! Fight! with other means or even Any means…”
I guarantee everybody here has encountered this appeal in some way or another. Personally, I have had church-going, Bible-toting family/friends say it is OK to Lie & Slander others as a means… Another one has said he would like to put his ‘enemies’ into camps (Obviously to dehumanize and strip them of human rights & I suspect eventually kill them all). Another vocally defended separating children from their parents… Others have suggested guerrilla warfare (got to use all those guns someday!) and truck bombs… Many others are totally fine with all manner of bad-faith, manipulative, untruthful, uncivil, threatening, ugly machinations to Get Our Way! & Fight! against sin/evil…
And that and the other unChristlike means trumpeted, is what some of us (and French) are going to continue to stand against – because guess what? Those Things are ALSO evil! You want us to stand against evil? Well, then – much of Ahmari’s way is evil and I’m going to stand against it! Most of Trumpism and its adjacent means are arrogant, idolatrous and hypocritical and I’ll join French and others in not joining those Means…
Thank you Andrew, I believe you have identified the heart of the issue
Nathan described a situation and King David immediately condemned that person. Nathan then told him, “He” was that man.
It is the exact scenario today. Recite the character and behavior contrary to everything we stand for as Christians and it will be unanimously condemned. However, those same hypocrites get all twisted into a ridiculous exception when it comes to Trump.
Finch and his wife were beloved, esteemed, members of the GOP and Christian society – until they rejected Donald Trump.
The fact that the dozens of respectable alternatives to him are rejected, is very revealing.
“I would rather stand alone in the light of truth than in a crowd filled with error.”- Adrian Rogers
Standing with this man who has lived an evil life without fail, has, and will, continue to discredit the name of Christ.
He is certainly dividing the “Wheat from the Tares.”
I have listened to and read from David French for years. He often irritates me and I very often agree with him. I don’t think he is a bad guy nor do I think he is faultless in the swirling cloud of realigning politics allegiances. I do think he has a lot of profitable things to say and at the same time he has contributed (perhaps unwittingly) in increasing polarization.
If it were up to me, I would err on the side of listening to him. But French has become somewhat of a lightning rod in recent years. His presence on that panel, at that meeting, might be more of a distraction than something helpful. I do not fault the organizers for reconsidering.
I am not certain why this is an issue.
The large majority of white evangelicals support Trump as leader of Republican Party.
There are only a few people who raise concerns about Trump in the white evangelical media, such as Russel Moore, David French and Ed Stetzer.
So not having French on the panel is not a big deal, as his world-view represents only a very small percentage of the PCA.
Also David French’s Wife, Nancy French said the PCA is full of “Neo-Confederates”. So I am sure that ruffled a bunch of feathers.
In the 2024 Republican Primaries Trump crushed the opposition.
So someone like Mike Pence who is actually a born-again Christian, an actual Conservative and a person of Integrity, barely got 4% of the primary vote.
It just seems the large majority of U.S. white evangelicals prefer a thug like Trump to lead them.
Seriously …. what does one expect from a bunch of Confederates……… yea Johnny Reb…
So the problem is not the problem. The problem is the guy who points out the problem! Sounds like classic Darvo to me.
Jane, if the guy pointing out the problem has ulterior motives or unholy strategies or a problematic process, then both have the problem. Don’t always assume the opposition is the hero.
Name the “ulterior motives” and “unholy” strategies of David French. Otherwise this is slanderous and a sin. To present your opinion as fact when it comes to another image bearer, who is a brother in Christ.
I believe your process in addressing this is the problematic one.
For many Anti-French (or that media sphere), good has become evil and evil has become good… so in their paradigm the good, in fact the way of Jesus that French advocates for, is to them “ulterior motives & unholy strategies…” Underlying a lot of these contentious discussions is an inverted moral paradigm… encouraged and discipled by a truly unholy media sphere and leaders with unholy character and motives. (Projection might in play as well)
What is the big deal about Christians becoming “more polarized” and “increasingly divided along political lines?”
If we all thought and acted like Progressives or Neo-cons or Never-Trumpers would that stop the pearl-clutching?
I sure don’t need David French, Russell Moore or Curtis Chang of The After Party to tell me how to be a an ‘acceptable’ Christian or how to be politically ‘acceptable’ in their eyes.
I noticed that there’s a growing list of the controlled opposition’s shaming screeds promoted on MSNBC to influence voters by making them feel morally superior if they don’t vote for Trump:
Tim Alberta and The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism, published December 5, 2023
Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman with White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy published on February 27, 2024
Jim Wallis: The False White Gospel: Rejecting Christian Nationalism, Reclaiming True Faith, and Refounding Democracy, published April 2, 2024
Jennifer,
“Do not be misled, Bad company corrupts good character.” I Corinthians 15:33
Tim Alberta was accosted at his father’s funeral because he doesn’t support Trump. That level of polarization should give us all pause.
Most of us are actually in “shock” that the person with a lifetime of horrendous character, is adored by so many. I know for a fact, not all Christians support him, nor are all claiming to be Christians actually Christians.
This whole saga is because as Christians, we used to be united that character and decency mattered.
None of the former Republican presidents or nominees, as respectable as they were, have received a cult-like following. Along comes a man well known for his immoral life, which he does not try to hide, and suddenly we are against one another.
I personally believe Trump gives cover to sinful bents that people themselves hold. By the way, the vitriol is all on one side. All of the violence, threats, name-calling and rejection is one sided. However, guilt and shame will make one defensive and hostile. He’s getting more unholy, not less, so at some point, people will finally feel ashamed that they supported such a person.
“If you want to know a man, see his friends” (supporters) – Ancient proverb.
Maybe, if you want to know a person, see who they support – racism, sexism, cruelty, law breaking, dishonesty, violence, incompetence, I mean the list goes on and on…own it all.
In my humble opinion, Uri Brito describes Mr. French’s worldview best:
https://kuyperian.com/pluralism-david-french-and-creational-apologetics/
“The legacy of Creation pushes the church to speak decisively against the operation manuals of the day, and that means that she must not coddle to the left in any way. It’s all or nothing when it comes to presenting Gospel truth.
This relates directly to modern attempts to build consensus with leftist apologists. David French, Phil Visher, and Jemar Tisby are not interested in a robust faith that seeks to preserve order above all; they are looking for a liberalized society where drag-queen hour can have its festive day just as the priest down the road. But we must push the antithesis by providing a blueprint that seems utterly foreign to the world. We don’t offer sophisticated footnotes to definitive realities. We adhere to a creation apologetic for mockery.
If the Church cannot speak sharply against those realities for fear of offending or under the noble desire to build bridges with unbelief, she will lose her witness and find herself arguing against the very created order that gives us voices. Such churches will grow deeper into skepticism and unbelief until she eventually no longer identifies with the Creator and turns to worship the created thing.”
Your comment basically admits that it is either the rights of the Drag Queen or the Church, and not both.
Which is the complete antithesis of our form of government and our Constitution. Small wonder why the Trumpists and Christian nationalists are such big fans of Putin and Orban. It is wrong for the progressives to use the levers of state to force their views, but OK for you to do so.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/david-french-response-sohrab-ahmari/
To quote David French:
A core tenet of Frenchism (I still can’t believe that’s a thing) is the consistent and unyielding defense of civil liberties, including the civil liberties of your political opponents — both in law and in culture. That means defending the legal rights of a radical leftist professor with the same vigor that you defend an embattled Christian conservative. And if you despise corporate censorship and corporate efforts to punish dissent, that means supporting not just libertarian Googlers who question Silicon Valley orthodoxy but also kneeling football players who use the national anthem as an occasion for public protest.
Conservative and Constitutionalist you are not.
Charles Mallet:
You seem confused about the difference between protected rights for ALL Americans and the need to stand up for what’s morally correct. I believe all Christians have a responsibility to stand up for Christ and His Kingdom. This means taking a stand against sin. It does NOT mean forcing the government to pass laws that eradicate the rights of those who choose sin as a lifestyle. Nor does it mean forcing the government to pass laws that favor a particular group of people based on skin color. On the flip side, it must also be stated that any laws designed to chip away at religious freedom should be viewed with concern. For example, Becerra was recently confronted by various Catholic groups because he has intimated that federal funds will no longer be given to any hospitals that do not perform genital mutilation ceremonies in the name of transgenderism. In my opinion, it goes without staying that the government should not be in the business of only funding hospitals that cut off children’s body parts in a misguided attempt to change their sex.
People are always free to choose the wide road to destruction if they choose to do so. It is not the government’s responsibility to force people to be moral. However, our government is based on the voice of the people. If people vote against abortion on demand in a particular state, that’s their right. If people vote for abortion, that’s their right.
So, the question really hinges on how Christians should respond to a government that clearly supports sinful, harmful, and Godless behaviors. Should we take Mr. French’s winsome path, or should we fight against sin in all its forms?
You stated this (and presumably so did Brito) in your comment:
“they are looking for a liberalized society where drag-queen hour can have its festive day just as the priest down the road.” They being David French and others I surmise. And it looks like you and the David French critics don’t like that.
The point is they can and should and it is Constitutionally protected. For example, if you Christians insist on a manger scene in the public square then you also have allow the Satanists, Hindus, and others their scenes. If you insist that Bible clubs can meet in schools, then it also means that the Satanist club, the Atheist club, and the LBGT club can.
Which why Ahmari folded when pushed on this on their debate:
“I think the typical Frenchian move is to say, XYZ is already under assault, things are already terrible, and therefore we can’t use the public power to at least prevent—” but here French cut him off. “What public power would you use, and how would it be constitutional?” French demanded. “I would love for somebody to answer that question one time. What public power, how is it constitutional, and if it’s not, do you believe it’s worth changing the Constitution?”
Ahmari had no answer.
When various Christian nationalist so-called “conservatives” are being increasingly dismissive of the rule of law, mentioning “extra-constitutional means”, and have a fawning admiration for Putin (after all homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion is banned in Russia). Then it and their supporters become a cancer.
Charles Mallet:
Your words:
“You stated this (and presumably so did Brito) in your comment:
“they are looking for a liberalized society where drag-queen hour can have its festive day just as the priest down the road.” They being David French and others I surmise. And it looks like you and the David French critics don’t like that.
The point is they can and should…”
Of COURSE they “can” under the Constitution. But SHOULD they? Stated differently, should certain Americans, under the freedom provided by our Constitution, mandate that doctors perform genital mutilation? Should they mandate that Satan receive equal footing as the God of the Universe? SHOULD they mandate that doctors perform abortions? That Christians celebrate gay marriage by creating pro-homosexuality wedding cakes?
Christians around the world would say NO, they should not. It is not a matter of protecting individual rights, but it is a moral matter that involves standing against what many Christians view as anti-Biblical mandates. The U. S. Government should not be in the business of mandating moral choices. Indeed, it should not be in the business of mandating immoral ones, either.
Get it? We are called to combat evil in every place it is found. EVERY place. Even in American libraries and American hospitals and American schools. Sitting by in a winsome, “live and let live” manner, is not a Christian option.
It is possible David French hasn’t encountered Satan yet. I pray he does. Only then will he recognize the power of the enemy.
Corporate or private businesses also have rights under the constitution. The difference between some of the examples you mention are between doing something that violates your duties you agreed to vs the company forcing one to be immoral or celebrate the immoral while they were fulfilling their duties.
And regarding the levers of power, the main issue anymore is not whether democrats or republicans use it but that the state itself has become an unelected entity in and of itself.
The problem is that the Christian Nationalist Right and the Left-Wingers are increasingly alike in their desire for statism and fascism (the Horseshoe if you will). When GOP governors want to punish a corporation for going “woke” (Disney) or Social Media companies (like Texas) how is that different from what those on Left do?
https://reason.com/2022/09/13/the-authoritarian-convergence/
Of course those on the Christian Nationalist side have “God” on their side. /sarc
I think you confuse use of power versus what statists and fascists do – a desire to dismantle our checks and balances of power. There are more plans on the left wanting to do the latter. Those elected using power that you don’t like are up for election. Statism that exists today, excessive bureaucracy or those without much oversight, have been given too much unchecked power and typically are left leaning.
Joe –
Last I checked, those who are voting to ban books – which is government overreach – are right-leaning.
Well said. Definitely they know how to run the cancel culture by being seen as “peacemakers”. Many on this forum are experts at knowing how abusers shut up the abused by force or guilt but they can’t see it for the one who does it silently in the name of peace within the political realm.
Let us not forget that both sides do the cancel culture or has that fact escaped you? DeSantis cancelling Disney is but one example to the applause of the social justice warriors on the right.
Charles Mallet:
Perhaps you are operating under the erroneous philosophy that all sides are equal? They are not.
But the Constitution is an equally opportunity offender. DeSantis cannot cancel Disney (mandating a moral choice) any more that a Left-Wing governor cancel a cake shop (mandating an immoral choice). Both are trying to use the levers of state power to force groups (this case companies) to stop things others don’t like and shred the Constitution while doing so (which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, NOT THE BIBLE).
This has NOTHING to do with philosophy, but the Constitution and our form of government. That is my point and David French’s point. I honestly don’t give d**m if there are satanist clubs or Bible study groups in schools. Both SHOULD be allowed to use the school facilities without interference. And you if say they should NOT be both allowed (i.e., the satanists not allowed), then you are as much against our form of government as the leftists who tried to get rid of the Bible clubs. No different and just as much a threat to our Republic.
“David French, Phil Visher, and Jemar Tisby are not interested in a robust faith that seeks to preserve order above all; they are looking for a liberalized society where drag-queen hour can have its festive day just as the priest down the road.”
Evidence?
And Ahmari’s case (and for a lot of Christian Nationalists and many of the anti-French people on this forum), the robust faith they seek to preserve order means using the levers of state power (especially Federal) to go after groups/organizations/etc that are sinful (well, certain sins mind you). It’s not enough to merely make abortion illegal in say, Texas, they want to have Texas go after organizations/doctors/patients OUTSIDE and who travel outside their state who do abortions. Never mind that it completely goes against the principles of Federalism among other things.
The bottom line is that many on this forum (and Evangelical Christians in general) were only OK with a pluralistic society, government, with the neutrality of Constitution, etc. when their political, cultural, moral power and authority was ascendant. But when other groups started using those same principles to assert their rights (and when Christian influence in the US is on the wane), they look for a Savior (and it is not Jesus) and try to do those groups what the Left has been trying to do (because God forbid, the Constitution is an equal opportunity offender and defender).
Dr. Norbot loves to point out that Jesus confronted sin regularly. But nowhere in the Gospels or the NT, does one see Jesus going after the sin of the policies of the Roman government (and Roman society at the time). Jesus overturned the tables and confronted the sin of the corrupt religious system. He said nothing of the corruption of the Roman Empire, nor physically attacked the various shrines to Roman gods, nor challenged the Roman practice of infanticide, etc.
That is why they go after people like David French for pointing this out.
After reading most of the articles cited by friend and foe, I find myself substantially in agreement with the French’s positions. The Message of the Gospel appears to be losing out in popular culture. Many Christians want to use the government to restore power and influence to Christians. The harder these Christians push political and legal remedies, the farther they get from the Message of the Gospel. If it is not persuasive enough to win over the hearts and minds of the masses, let the masses continue on the crowded Broad Way that leads to Perdition. You can’t force them to take the sparsely traveled Straight and Narrow that leads to Life. NASB Matthew 7:13-14: 13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
By what will all know we are Jesus’s disciples?
By love, but it seems like you insinuate one side has a monopoly on love. Love is not just about being respectful during political discourse but also doing what you think is right for your neighbors. Jesus also said we are to be as innocent as doves and shrewd as vipers. We don’t let people just steam roll us either and I suspect that is the way the PCA felt. We only have one side of the story.
Hi Joe,
If evidence of love for one another is what we’ll be known by and doing what we think is right for our neighbors is one aspect of that (eg. love your neighbors as yourself) then isn’t that enough grounds to give David French the floor to raise what he is concerned about and discuss a way forward as well? If not, why not?
If our intent is to speak goodness into the body of Christ and culture at large, should not another in Christ be able to speak to us as well? If not, why not?
Regarding the serpents and doves comment, while I personally don’t like to be steamrolled and find it challenging here is the paragraph from the NIV (keeping in mind that this is Jesus instructing disciples to go out into the world and preach the kingdom of God.)
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
I know this is only one piece of scripture, but I do see it as creating tension with the idea that we do not let people steamroll us.
Which is why many so-called “Christians” get upset and call it “woke” and “Liberal Talking Points” when a pastor goes through the Sermon on the Mount.
In an interview with Russell Moore:
“It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — “turn the other cheek” — [and] to have someone come up after to say, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?” And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, “I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,” the response would not be, “I apologize.” The response would be, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.” And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
IOW. the vast majority of Evangelicals in the US want Barabbas and their true lord and savior is Trump (a fighter, a bruiser, someone who refuses to be steamrolled, etc. – just like Trump) like the 1st Century AD Jews. And we all know how well that turned out for those that picked Barabbas 40 years later. And I will be a member of Legio X Fretensis when it happens.
Cynthia, you say:
“We are called to combat evil in every place it is found. EVERY place. Even in American libraries and American hospitals and American schools”
Who is calling us to do this?
Let go of your generalizations. Are there some thoughtless people out there? Sure. But it isn’t very charitable to lump everyone together. My point is there is a balance when engaging others. I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt here to those that didn’t want French and I think you all are throwing rocks based on generalizations.
Charles, do you have a link to that interview?
I’m concerned about the desire for “Barabbas” as well and certainly don’t think that any of us are really immune to the desire to support a strong man that we feel represents and will enforce our beliefs. We may not come to an agreement, but this is part of why I think it’s important for those of us in the broader church to engage one another thoughtfully.
Reactions and resistance to broader culture aside, if we’re to be known by our love for one another, I don’t see a lot of evidence of this online. :)
Also could you explain the roman legion reference? I’m sorry, but TBH it was lost on me.
Joe, if you see this, I did see your reply below and want to assure you that I have no interest in throwing stones. I ask questions because I am honestly hoping for a thoughtful response. No interest in “gotcha!” moments.
In the context of this particular thread and discussion that involves more and less direct opposition or disagreement to cultural institutions I was hoping to better understand where you see “not being steamrolled” on the spectrum. That is pretty broad in and of itself. Your comment about balance provides some context. Generalizations, pointing at the extremes, and dismissing more moderate opinions as acquiescing “squishes”–these are all easy. So thanks.
David French and Russell Moore speak as ones who lack wisdom.
The hour is very late, for this nation and the world.
Do they not know what manner of man they are telling people to vote for? Or throw away their vote with a write in or some such nonsense? Effectively the same thing in binary election.
Do those here who espouse these men as moral spokesmen know what manner of man these people want to keep in office?
Their views are luxury beliefs, and no more.
Believers need to FOCUS and not chase shiny objects.
These gentlemen are, at best, misguided.
They deserve to be ignored, not platformed.
Shiny objects like the political power offered by Trump?
Like mega churches in multi-million dollar buildings?
Like banning books, while church attendance dwindles?
The “hour is late” has been stated since I remember my parents stumping for Reagan. Is this the real time the hour is late, or will it be 2028, 2032, 2036?
There are Christian democrats, who have thought and prayed and read their Bible about this decision. The stunning arrogance to assume you have a perfect interpretation of what the Bible says In particular abut how to vote. I am someone who put in none of the above and voted down ballot for people I knew well, knew had character, or supported things that served our community well. But I guess that’s not Christian enough for you, eh?
Charles Mallet:
Your words: “IOW. the vast majority of Evangelicals in the US want Barabbas and their true lord and savior is Trump (a fighter, a bruiser, someone who refuses to be steamrolled, etc. – just like Trump) like the 1st Century AD Jews. And we all know how well that turned out for those that picked Barabbas 40 years later. And I will be a member of Legio X Fretensis when it happens.”
Again, you seem rather confused. Our former president has nothing to do with the points I have made. In addition, I am not sure how you can speak for “the vast majority of Evangelicals in the US.”
Considering that 81% Evangelicals voted for Trump in 2020, that would called a vast majority don’t you think? The people dismissive and critical of David French (Ahmari for starters) are quite vocal supporters of Trump for the most part.
The point is you are not in the 81% so you are making a lot of leaps to who those people are based on your bias.
Jerone,
I surmise that the critics of French and Moore lack wisdom.
What does the apostle Paul say about those outside the church in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13? It should be noted that Paul was writing this when Roman government under people like Nero was in power (and much more depraved and pagan that the current state in the US).
I guess you consider the Sermon on the Mount to be a “luxury belief” (Much like those so-called “Christians” who said the same thing to Moore). I guess focusing on the person and characteristics of Christ, etc. is considered a shiny object. Maybe by voting third party, they are standing on principles and it is message that both candidates are worthless and not deserving of the office. If you consider that to be nonsense, then you are someone who is blow to and fro with every wind.
Charles Mallet:
First, thanks for trying to keep it civil. Well done. It is always very difficult to do so when the stakes are as emotional and fraught with tension as they are in our country at this time.
I believe both of us care about the Constitution a great deal and want to respect it. At least, I most definitely do. It is the foundation of our government, after all. It is truly an incredible document that should be preserved and respected. That said, the Bible is the foundation of my faith. I believe following its precepts leads to the best earthly life imaginable. I believe that one day, I will stand before my Maker and have to give an account of my life here on earth.
And I most definitely want to be able to say that I stood up against abortion, against homosexual behavior, against child exploitation and sexual abuse, against sexual perversion, against….
Against SIN in all its forms. The Constitution has changed over time and been improved in many ways. The Bible has remained the same. The God I serve has remained the same.
Dr. Cynthia,
Look at the goat- sheep scripture. Did Jesus say to the sheep that they did all they could to fight against sin, but what did He say? What did he say to the goats? Could it be that if we do what Jesus said (as He certainly knows best) that in the long run sin is most likely to be lessened?
Certainly, in our homes we train up our children, and teaching is so important, but I have found out through many years of teaching in the public schools as hard as I try, most children leave in some respects as they came in. The hearts of men and children are the issue. That’s what defiles a man. How do we help the hearts – by following Jesus’ teaching, but first we take care of our own hearts, always remembering that Jesus is the Savior.
Belinda Black French:
Thanks for your comments. I just finished reading Matthew and was struck by how often Jesus acted against sin. I can picture him entering the temple and flipping tables when I close my eyes!
Every single time he encountered sin, he squashed it. He consistently castigated the Pharisees for their adherence to man-made rules. He consistently healed diseases and told people to go and sin no more. He consistently told people to be “perfect.”
Sin and Jesus don’t mix. As a Christian, I am well aware that people don’t like this message, but that does not mean I try to sugar-coat it so they feel better. That does not mean I let children in my classroom get away with bullying because “most children leave in some respects as they came in.”
Yes, the hearts of all of us are the issue, and only God can change hearts. My job as a believer is to spread the gospel to one and all whether it changes them or not, whether they believe it or not. God is the one who decides, not me. I am simply meant to follow and obey.
This article is about not allowing a Christian to sugar-coat the gospel. That’s what David French and others seem to want to do because they believe it indicates “Christian winsomeness.” It does not. It indicates an attempt to attract others by making the message easier to swallow. I think that’s wrong.
Dr. Cynthia,
It seems that you think just because my approach may be different from yours that I’m not against sin as much as you. You’re not right in that assessment.
Your statement:this article is about not allowing a Christian to sugar coat the gospel.
Please point out, with clear examples what david French says that is not orthodox.
I’ll hold my breath…..
Joe:
Your comments are misguided. For starters if even there are more plans on the left than the right, does what the right is trying OK? One example, J.D. Vance, the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in Ohio, has called for punitive taxation to “seize the assets” of nonprofits that push a “woke” agenda and of companies like those that dared to oppose voting legislation in Georgia and other states last year. There are the attempts by both left and right politicians to gut Section 230 to deal with pesky social media they don’t like.
Texas and Florida its social media laws are no different than what the left is trying. The use of power such as that to dismantle the checks and balances of power (namely the 1st and 5th amendments). But I guess you are Ok with that.
Below is a quote from the “Aquila Report” received Tuesday, May 14, in my inbox.
“That little ray of sunshine is David French — the Army JAG (in case you didn’t know)-turned-religious liberty litigator-turned-writer whose brain has been so corrupted by Trump derangement that he sold out to The New York Times and The Atlantic, where his columns are indistinguishable from the dishonest drivel of the legacy press’s anti-religious religion reporters. In a phrase, he’s a regular accuser of the brethren.
French makes political polarization his personal brand, so it’s curious that the PCA has invited him to be a panelist at an assembly-wide seminar called “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” Is the denomination unaware that French’s family publicly left the PCA because it’s a “hostile” congregation of “neo-Confederates“?”
History of White Sothern Protestant Denominations in the U.S. –
-Support of Slavery
-Support of the Confederacy
-Support of The Klan
-Support of the Lost Cause
-Support of Jim Crow
-Support of Segregation
The PCA is off shoot of Southern Presbyterians —
Given the very long horrible history ……Neo-Confederates sounds just right…..
The accuser of the brethern is Satan. So you are comparing David French to Satan, when he argues that we should stick our principles (you know character counts) instead of supporting a degenerate pagan like Trump? Has your conscience be seared? But then the writer of that same article seems to think it OK for the Executive Branch, FedGov, state and local governments to ignore the SCOTUS when it comes to Obergefell. Why? Because Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act (which repeals DOMA – which was moot in wake of the SCOTUS decision). This Act codifies the SCOTUS decision.
Of course, all the SJWs on the right didn’t bother read this part of the Act in Section 6:
(b) Goods Or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
IOW. this means your church and your pastor cannot be compelled or sued to perform a gay marriage.
All of your arguments are disingenuous pejorative and ad hominem attacks–he works for the New York Times and Atlantic, those bastions of liberal press!
No where in your statements do you present facts, just your opinions of a person you don’t know. Once again, slander is a sin and you need to repent. I pray you find Jesus some day and accept him into your life.
Isn’t the fact that he has worked for the “liberal press” part of the point? That we should be able to hold conversations across political lines, without dismissing, accusing, or labeling those with whom we differ (whether they be conservative or liberal)? There are Christians on both sides of the aisle, and we should be setting an example for the world on how to have respectful, thoughtful debate without all the condescending, sinful nonsense.
Yet we can’t even get a conversation STARTED because we are mad about who is or isn’t included. Sigh.
David French worked for the National Review, The Dispatch, and other conservative publications prior to that. His views there were the same they are now when his working for the Atlantic and the NYT. I would argue that he is being consistent and principled, but the NR numerous “conservatives” drank the MAGA Kool-Aid and began to genuflect towards their messiah and savior, (not Jesus, but TFG).
Joe Myers:
Thanks for speaking with some wisdom here and trying to keep all of us thinking rather than emoting. I appreciate it.
Charles Mallet:
One last question here that might help clarify your position: Do you believe the Bible is the ultimate authority when it comes to morality?
What does the Bible say about fighting evil?
Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Romans 12:2
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
James 4:7
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
Romans 12:21
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
1 Corinthians 10:5
“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..”
Isaiah 54:17
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall refute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
It is, quite literally, a war between good and evil. In every war, one must pick a side and one must stand and fight.
Having followed David French from long before he became an NYT opinion writer, I’ve never read anything by him that was less than fully theologically orthodox. I have no dog in the fight of US politics but I have a German passport and Germans are hypersensitive to the adoration of Strong Leaders. To quote the 19th century (conservative) Swiss historian Jakob Burckhardt: “In the 20th century… people will no longer believe in leaders but will periodically believe in saviours”. It was fear that brought you-know-who to power and fear is still the main tool of wannabe saviours.
Pretty much all the negative comments above are based on worldly fear. “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.” If we’ll know them by their fruits it’s no wonder the US church is a mess. And, yes, you could say the same of most European churches but at least we don’t seek salvation in politicians or political parties.
Jesus Is the answer. To me it appears the “theologically orthodox” and the “theologically liberal” become enamored and encumbered with the works of man as opposed to the Work of Christ. Those who are called Christian and “born again of the Spirit” are, as Paul, to be evangelists and proclaim Jesus’ death and resurrection.
To put French in the same comment with the Sermon on the Mount shows a fundamental misunderstanding of French and his role.
He pretends to be a moral spokesman, a watchman. Instead he is a political pundit. And more, actually.
Square this story: Why would he do this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/13/opinion/haley-voters-biden.html
He is telling Haley voters to vote for Biden in the general.
I believe he is bought and paid for. Like Moore. There are rumblings that Moore has ties to some interesting people. A look into the finances of these two might be revealing. Paging Julie Roys.
Believers please wake up, and think for yourself. These men are wolves in the henhouse. They want you to vote against your interests.
And Trump is bought for and paid for by foreign interests (saudis, Russia, China)? Trump didn’t just solicit a billion dollars from oil companies to do away with regulations on their industries? Trumps son in law didn’t get 2 billion from the saudis to invest on leaving the White House?
You do know, don’t you, that there are Christians who vote Democrat. You do honestly know that like 80-90% of black christians vote Democrat? Or do you think you are smarter and more Christian than them? Your interpretation of the Bible and how that reflects on politics is without reproach?
Moore has ties to “interesting people”! Like what does that even mean? This is slander and against the Bible. You need to repent and find Jesus
Bob C. Kile:
You do know, of course, that many Black Democrats (particularly male) are turning away from Joe Biden, right? Why do you think that is the case?
Regarding David French, I will get back to you. You asked for evidence that he is not orthodox in his beliefs. I will provide it. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why he was disinvited from the event discussed in the article? It wasn’t because he is “orthodox,” I can assure you.
Looking forward to when you move the goalpost on what orthodoxy is!
Very likely your answer to why he was disinvited is in the article above. Not some slanderous innuendo that you are going to quick do a google search for bad things about David French. you made a statement about David French and now you are looking for the evidence to support that statement. Good grief.
Is your orthodoxy voting republican=christian?
Answer just one question, dear Cynthia, can a Christian vote Democrat?
Bob C. Kile,
I am smiling about your “move the goalpost” statement concerning orthodoxy. David French has moved the goalposts himself, Bob. He has admitted several times that his stance on abortion has changed. He has also expressed ambivalence regarding allowing homosexuals to marry. Further, he tries to hide his hatred of our former President by couching his comments in Constitutional parameters and by attacking a personality that he believes does not reflect Christ. Instead of judging by actions, he judges by words.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism
This article describes him best, although you may disagree. It explains why David French is so controversial in orthodox spaces: He does not contend for the gospel. Instead, he seeks to create a space for it in the middle of spaces controlled by Satan. He attempts to equalize both sides, as if sin and Jesus can live as neighbors or even in the same house.
Jesus tells us to abhor sin; French tells us to live and let live. Jesus tells us to contend for the gospel; French tells us to keep it in our corner in the name of pluralism.
And therein lies the rub: French seems incapable of getting off the cultural fence to see that the spiritual battle is upon us. Christians must stand up and fight.
cinthia-
There’s nothing wrong with changing one’s position as one becomes more informed or has more experiences. I actually believe it is very ignorant, prideful and stubborn to refuse to move one’s stance despite new information and experience being introduced.
I know my position on abortion changed once I learned (from doctors) what “medical abortions” are: in many states removing a stillborn fetus is defined as a “spontaneous abortion”, retrieving the fetus after a placental abruption (which can save both mom and baby) is defined as an “abruptio placentae abortion” – but Christians hear the mere word “abortion” and shut everything down. We must be better than that and have a conversation, inviting other data points and experiences to be heard and considered.
“he tries to hide his hatred of our former President by couching his comments in Constitutional parameters and by attacking a personality that he believes does not reflect Christ.” You mean like what conservatives do with Obama, Pelosi, Biden, or anyone left leanng? Where was your objection then? Your bias is showing. Also, it’s more than just “a personality that he BELIEVES does not reflect Christ.” Cursing, bullying, lying, refusing to repent (stating he didn’t need to), and adultery do not reflect Christ, am I right? or has that goalpost moved based on political party? Or is that behavior ok because it’s part of Christians “standing up and fighting”?
And my understanding of what French means by live and let live is that you cannot force your beliefs on someone! (I believe this, too.) Evangelism is an invitation not a demand. If someone turns away, you must pray for them…and let them.
Beto,
Maybe you should reread my posts.
And reread your own post.
Jerome dupuis: “I BELIEVE he is bought and paid for”
Slander
No evidence
Your own opinion
I think you should read your own posts
“O earth, earth, earth: Hear the Word of YHWH!” Jeremiah 22:29
If one is following Yahshua, The Word of YHWH Made Flesh, he will be then set free by Yahshua from all of the carnal proclivities mankind and his evil desires/abuse of self and others (you name them – Scripture names them; mankind has done them, for all have sinned and come short of the Kabod of YHWH). Yahshua though He was in flesh and bones and sinless Blood from YHWH (and not an earthly father made of dirt) never sinned; therefore He could offer His Blood for cleasing and forgiveness of sins. If one is following any god, demon or person other than Yahshua, He will stay, die, in his sins and will realize when he dies that he indeed had been following a false god, impotent to set him free from his sins. And then it will be too late.
If one is able, check out Dr. Christopher Yuan online – he has been set free from a lifestyle of sodomy/drug use and marketing of drugs in multiple states. (When he was arrested by 12 federal agents at his door in Atlanta Georgia, he was caught with 9.1 ton of marijuana – this was serious!) He travels the world, telling of the Salvation of our Messiah Who frees us from our sins. His books: “From A Far Country” and “Holy Sexuality” – are both used in university and college curriculum. He is a former professor at Moody Bible Institute, having received a degree there after his incarceration and subsequent conversion to Messiah while in prison. Joy to the world: YHWH’s Salvation has come! Let earth receive Her KING Yahshua – He is returning, soon.
To One and All:
Here is a question posed by Bob C. Kile:
Can a Christian vote Democrat?
The Democrat group that is growing fastest in the USA is the NONES group (religiously unaffiliated). Perhaps those who still vote for Democrats are not aware of what many Democrats in power are selling:
Abortion
Transgenderism
Hamas
Open Borders
DEI
To the extent that anti-Biblical policies are being actively promoted by Democrats, I am not sure I could vote for Democrats as a Christian. But that’s just me. I would love to hear from those who disagree.
I am a Christian and a Democrat.
I believe a woman and her dr should be free to do what is best for mother and baby without government interference. Having women in medical crises locked up in court battles is disgraceful. And with ZERO abortions, we need healthcare and policies to better support mom and child.
I believe there are 2 sexes made by our Creator; I also believe girls don’t have to like pink, and boys don’t have to like blue (that gets into gender, often conflated with sex); is that “supporting” transgenderism? As for “they are trying to get your kids to change genders!”: that is hyperbolic fearmongering that undermines what the real concerns of transgenderism should be, which is spiritual and mental illness.
I believe Israel has a right to defend itself. I also believe Palestinians have the right to exist (not to be conflated with Hamas), and have questions about “what is going too far” re: Israel’s repsonse.
I believe in immigration reform. We’ve never had “open borders” (another hyperbolic term). But we are experiencing a “perfect storm” of consequences from prior immigration and foreign policy blunders. Time to fix them.
I believe in DEI. God made us all different for a reason, and that difference has created and shaped a myriad of valuable experiences and knowledge. I believe when we bring all together toward a common goal, we realize the fullness of God’s creation. I believe in equitable access to opportunity; that “everything was a fair meritocracy before” is wholly untrue. Racism, sexism, classism, nepotism, etc have ALWAYS impacted access to opportunity, and we must mitigate them. What we have now is imperfect, but I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On this site, there’s an article outlining the data showing across ALL of the USA, the NONES are growing. Let’s not twist the data to make it look like it’s ONLY among Democrats or that Republicans are all Christians (or vice versa).
I think we should explore the connection between this and the evangelical support of Trump. The same people judging are the same ones defending anything Trump says and does. While I used to vote across party lines, I can say I stopped doing that when I saw such blind support for a man whose lifestyle and language is the epitome of “out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.”
My decision is further confirmed by the conservative abandonment of “small government”. All in the name of “culture wars”, the stances conservatives are taking promote bigger government with more overreach. I mean, lobbying for only teaching patriotic/pro-America content, silencing any content that criticizes America, and banning books is too much (and SHOULD be concerning to anyone who knows world history).
This discussion overall has been very disheartening. It’s sad how so many have ill feelings about David French. There are really a lot of inaccuracies stated.
He’s a good man. Maybe you will have an opportunity to get to know him. You will be blessed.