French, White Evangelicals, and Donald Trump

 

I enjoyed reading David French’s columns and musings at National Review. I looked forward to reading his perspective on everything from law to religion. I still enjoy reading much of what he writes.

However, the 2016 presidential campaign and election had a demonstrable effect on French; it changed him. It changed a lot of us, truthfully. Many thought and felt that the country had two less-than-desirable choices on the ballot for president. Frankly, for the center-left, voting for its candidate was a no-brainer. For the center-right, the decision was not so easy. In addition to his recent conversion to Republican politics, there were legitimate questions regarding Donald Trump’s understanding and commitment to what remains of Republican principles as well as questions concerning his personal character, his temperament, and his ability to lead in a role that was outside of his purview.

Despite these and other legitimate concerns regarding the costs of a Donald Trump presidency, he won the election — thanks in large part to the support of white Evangelicals. Christian support for Donald Trump has wedged itself deeply under David French’s skin and he’s (figuratively) spilled loads of ink letting everyone know about his disgust for his fellow white Evangelicals.

Writing at The Dispatch, French has penned a number of pieces castigating his fellow Christians for supporting and defending Donald Trump. In full transparency, I share some of his concerns regarding the unwillingness and apprehension of Evangelicals (and MAGA world, generally) to publicly hold President Trump accountable when he errs. Over the last four years, it would’ve been in the best interest of the president — and our country — had both groups spoken up sooner and more frequently to let the president know that support didn’t equal a blank check. It would have made President Trump a more reliable and consistent leader.

Having said that, French has taken a professional Never Trump stance to use as a bludgeon against fellow Christians. He misses few chances in letting the public know his feelings about white Evangelicals that continue to support Donald Trump.

Here’s a recent piece posted this past week on The French Press.

The first portion is fairly legit. Though I think the video announcement is fairly clear, French questions how Albert Mohler, the potential next president of the Southern Baptist Convention, could endorse Donald Trump in this year’s election — specifically when he didn’t support Donald Trump in 2016.

French writes:

In 2016, he was consistent with his denomination’s clear and unequivocal statement about the importance of moral character in public officials. He has now decisively changed course.

In 1998—during Bill Clinton’s second term—the Southern Baptist Convention declared that “tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment” and therefore urged “all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.”

Mohler so clearly recognized the applicability of those words that he said, “If I were to support, much less endorse Donald Trump for president, I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.” I do wonder if Mohler will apologize. He absolutely should.

Though Mohler discusses the overall character deficits of both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, I think French misses a few things in this comparison. French doesn’t clarify the difference between the evangelical condemnation of former President Bill Clinton and the lack of evangelical condemnation of President Donald Trump.

The personal fouls and unforced errors committed since President Trump has been in office, though not excusable, are not of the same standard as those committed by Bill Clinton when he was in office. It’s a distinction with an important difference. The comparison, here, is with the moral offenses committed while in office (hence, the citation of Bill Clinton’s second term). To be consistent, we have to then compare both presidents to what they’ve done while in office.

Among many, many other indiscretions, Bill Clinton had an extramarital relationship and deliberately lied to the public about it. Clinton also lied under oath during his civil case — he denied the affair, the relationship, and that he had sexual relations with his intern; he lied under oath during grand jury testimony about his sexual relationship with his intern; he obstructed justice and persuaded his former intern to lie under oath, and was also guilty of witness tampering.

Many of the offenses that Donald Trump has committed in office haven’t (or haven’t yet) reached Clinton’s level of sinfulness (if one can use that term). Again, I’m not excusing the current president for the growing list of transgressions he’s committed (macro or micro). I’m simply highlighting the difference between the two, demonstrating why the comparison fails. All sins aren’t the same. For good reason, the Bible goes to great lengths to educate its readers about the gradations of sins — the severity of which, if not immediately obvious, are seen in the varying consequences of and responses to those sins. For example, the penalty for murder is death. Conversely, the penalty for unintentional killing (negligence that leads to killing, manslaughter) is expulsion to a city of refuge — ending only when the high priest in office at the time of the killing dies.

Additionally, I don’t remember reading French conceding the difficulty of choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary in 2016. He has repeatedly minimized or ignored the inconvenience many Christians endured as they thoughtfully contemplated and ultimately decided between the two broadly unlikeable candidates. However, in this particular piece, it’s the closest French has come to acknowledging that struggle. He says,

The role of the people of God in political life is so much more difficult and challenging than merely listing a discrete subset of issues (even when those issues are important!) and supporting anyone who agrees to your list. The prophet Jeremiah exhorted the people of Israel to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.”

Yes, David, it is, and thanks for finally acknowledging the obvious. It was a challenge and it remains a challenge. Many Evangelicals, realizing that if they voted, had a choice between bad and worse. Consequently, many thoughtfully prayed, fasted, read their Bibles, studied Christian history, sought counsel from clergy and fellow believers — and still, prayed more. In essence, for many white Evangelicals, choosing Trump, warts and all, was “seeking the welfare” of the country so that they may also “have welfare (or as the NIV translates it, “…Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”).

Moreover, Christians and Evangelicals thought about the ramifications of voting for either candidate or not voting at all. French generally flouts this process. He’s flippant when it comes to why white Evangelicals, despite the president’s personal flaws, continue to support him. He disparages his fellow Evangelicals in ways that demonstrate a clear and consistent lack of Christian grace but also in ways that he hasn’t nor wouldn’t address black Christians regarding their vote for — and support of — former President Barack Obama.

And that’s one of the areas where he’s undermined his witness on Christian political activity and accountability — his differing standards between black and white Christians. French holds black Christians to a much lower moral standard than he does white Evangelicals. Black Christians deliberately and recurrently have escaped his admonitions. In this post, he stresses black Christian religiosity but only as a cudgel against white Evangelicals and the latter’s support of Trump.

Again, French has never taken black Christians to task for supporting Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) the way he does with white Evangelicals and Trump (if he has to the same extent, my apologies to him). I would like to know why — specifically in light of the fact that he openly speculated as to what Obama’s true “religious” beliefs were.

Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama? Why didn’t French rebuke black Christians for forming a cult around him and his leadership? Did he ever implore black Christians to speak up and hold Obama accountable? Did he write numerous pieces on why black Christians were obligated to forfeit their support of Barack Obama or risk losing moral and religious credibility? Did black Christians abandon “the character test” like their white Evangelical counterparts? Were they ever in danger of forfeiting their “competence” like white Evangelicals?

I think French would have established more credibility (again, on this issue) had he held his fellow Christians who’re black to the same religious standard he holds white Evangelicals. There would’ve been some consistency in his position.

Then, there’s this:

And please Christians, do not run back to arguments about “binary choice.” When I walk into the voting booth (or mail in my ballot), I will see more than two names. I’ll also have a choice to write in a name. I will not have to compromise my convictions to cast a vote for president.

This has always been a less than persuasive argument to me. Of course, one can write in and vote for Mickey Mouse on the ballot.

But there are certain variables that exist that one must take into consideration if one wants to throw away one’s vote to maintain, in this case, a sense of moral superiority. One variable is who’s also on the ballot running for office, here, the presidency. This is particularly important if and when a notable third-party candidate is running and from whom this third-party candidate will siphon votes. Not actively voting for one of the two major candidates is passively a vote in favor of the other.

He continues:

If you do, however, want to revert to the language of “binary choice,” we need to examine the larger context. In January the nation faced a different kind of binary choice. It was, quite simply, “Trump or Pence.” When the president was impeached after he clearly attempted to condition vital military aid to an ally on a demand for a politically motivated investigation of a political opponent and on a demand to investigate a bizarre conspiracy theory, white Evangelicals had a decision to make.

They chose Trump.

They chose Trump when they would have certainly sought to impeach and convict a Democrat under similar facts.

This, too, is unpersuasive. His position underlies many assumptions that Trump was deserving of impeachment based on information contained in the transcript of a phone call between him and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. In my opinion, and not having voted for Donald Trump, I didn’t think there was enough in that transcript that qualified as a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” and I certainly didn’t think it justified impeachment, much less conviction and removal.

Second, David French is right: it was a binary choice, but not between “Trump or Pence.” It was between supporting the flagrant use of impeachment as a political tool to remove an elected president for partisan reasons and not using impeachment for politically partisan reasons, full stop. To use that embarrassing episode to reinforce an already flimsy argument against the “binary choice” argument, and to further diminish white Evangelicals, missed the mark.

Look, I get it. David French has a severe loathing for Donald Trump. In the professional and credentialed class, he’s certainly not alone. But his animosity for Donald Trump has negatively affected his judgment and conduct toward his fellow white Evangelicals.

On this issue, he lacks distinguishable Christian love when addressing them but particularly when mocking them. I admit that French may be sincerely concerned with the reputation and credibility of white Evangelicals and Christian political witness. But the way he communicates his concern looks like a white Evangelical more concerned with self/moral preservation — actively trying to distance himself from the stigma of Donald Trump. In doing so, his critiques come across as if to be saying, “I’m not like those Evangelicals. I’m a real Christian because I condemn Trump and those so-called Evangelicals who support him.”

When white Evangelicals have called him out on social media for his lack of objectivity and incivility toward them, he seems reluctant to address these objections maturely. Several times, even after respectful inquiry, engagement, and push back asking him to defend or clarify his position(s), he’s un-friended them. I’ve seen it and have been disheartened by it.

In his critiques going forward, as I’m sure there will be more, I hope David French offers a bit more Christian charity as he challenges his fellow white Evangelicals.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 330 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Mr. French continues to have valuable things to say about freedom of religion and the rights to bear arms. I just need to do some heavy filtering of his articles to find those valuable nuggets.

    And the right to arm bears.

    • #31
  2. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Mr. French continues to have valuable things to say about freedom of religion and the rights to bear arms. I just need to do some heavy filtering of his articles to find those valuable nuggets.

    He is one of the only ones on the right that challenges the nearly solid wall of support around police actions. Libertarians and Leftists are too cynical by half, so I always appreciated his take on high profile officer shootings and he would connect some of them to a passive anti-2nd ammendment action in law enforcement.

    • #32
  3. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I had to look twice to make sure the photo wasn’t photoshopped. It looks like the crowd in the Oval Office is re-enacting the Dawn of Man scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, with President Trump as the Monolith.

    Gary, that is hilarious.

    I’m not sure if you’re being facetious, or have actually never seen people praying over someone like this. It is quite common in my circles, when someone is sick, or going on a mission trip, or for a variety of other reasons.

    I’m being semi-facetious, so thanks, Jerry! But no, I’ve never seen anything like this in Catholic circles. We do things a little differently across the Tiber.

    Yeah, we Evangelicals can be a bit weird to outsiders.  Catholics, too, in different ways.  Let’s not even start about the Pentecostals and the snakes.  :)

    It’s a total aside from the OP, but I think you’ll like this story.  On Saturday, I had to drop by a local Catholic church to pick up supplies for my daughter’s homeschooling group, which is meeting remotely during the lockdown.  The Catholic church lets the group use its facilities, even though we’re mostly Protestant heretics.

    As I drove into the parking lot, they had it taped off in a strange way, to create a drive-thru leading to the main church doors.  A priest was standing there, in full regalia, presumably to offer communion or other comfort to any of his parishioners who might drive by.  I thought it was quite an excellent thing for him to be doing, theological differences aside. 

    • #33
  4. Derryck Green Member
    Derryck Green
    @DerryckGreen

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Derryck, this was a great post. Just “liking” it is not enough. I don’t really have anything to add. Well done, and thanks.

    Thanks, Jerry!

    • #34
  5. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I had to look twice to make sure the photo wasn’t photoshopped. It looks like the crowd in the Oval Office is re-enacting the Dawn of Man scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, with President Trump as the Monolith.

    Gary, that is hilarious.

    I’m not sure if you’re being facetious, or have actually never seen people praying over someone like this. It is quite common in my circles, when someone is sick, or going on a mission trip, or for a variety of other reasons.

    I’m being semi-facetious, so thanks, Jerry! But no, I’ve never seen anything like this in Catholic circles. We do things a little differently across the Tiber.

    Yeah, we Evangelicals can be a bit weird to outsiders. Catholics, too, in different ways. Let’s not even start about the Pentecostals and the snakes. :)

    It’s a total aside from the OP, but I think you’ll like this story. On Saturday, I had to drop by a local Catholic church to pick up supplies for my daughter’s homeschooling group, which is meeting remotely during the lockdown. The Catholic church lets the group use its facilities, even though we’re mostly Protestant heretics.

    As I drove into the parking lot, they had it taped off in a strange way, to create a drive-thru leading to the main church doors. A priest was standing there, in full regalia, presumably to offer communion or other comfort to any of his parishioners who might drive by. I thought it was quite an excellent thing for him to be doing, theological differences aside.

    Bob Hope wasn’t Catholic, but his wife was. He used to joke that when he picked her up from Mass, he never got out of the car out of fear that the parish would raffle off his car. 

    • #35
  6. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Mr. French continues to have valuable things to say about freedom of religion and the rights to bear arms. I just need to do some heavy filtering of his articles to find those valuable nuggets.

    Maybe. But talk is cheap if you are advocating for a politician who will most certainly work to curtail, or even eliminate both rights. Especially if the politician you reject is standing strong for those very things.

    We live in a real, very real, world. French must be living somewhere else. *Pre-heaven?

    *PreHeaven is a place where our leaders are saints, and the smartest, best people get to educate us all on how to be upstanding moral people. Those who follow get rewarded by the writer/thinker/priest class,  and deplorables, as judged by these priests get shamed out of existence.

     

    • #36
  7. DrewInWisconsin is done with t… Member
    DrewInWisconsin is done with t…
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Mr. French continues to have valuable things to say about freedom of religion and the rights to bear arms. I just need to do some heavy filtering of his articles to find those valuable nuggets.

    I admit I tend to apply “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    You’ll notice that once again David French spreads the Charlottesville lie that President Trump referred to white supremacists as “very fine people.” At this point, there is no excuse for a well-informed person to be passing off that lie as truth. David French is either ill-informed (which makes his commentary worthless), or he’s knowingly lying. I think it’s the latter.

    I have no use for liars.

    • #37
  8. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Derryck Green: On this issue, he lacks distinguishable Christian love when addressing them but particularly when mocking them.

    True. Further, for me David French continues to bear false witness against both President Trump (his continual reference to the clearly debunked “very fine people on both sides” calumny) as well evangelicals who vote or campaign for him.

      

    • #38
  9. Drusus Inactive
    Drusus
    @Drusus

    You see French’s singling out of white evangelicals as arrogant and paternalistic, but it seems gracious to me. White evangelicals do not have the weight of slavery, Jim Crow, and lingering racism weighing on their decision making process when considering the potential of the first black president. I think French’s point is to simply extend a little grace to black evangelicals. (It is not a grace I would or do extend.) But for the people who not only share his cultural history and experience, but have loudly declaimed the importance of moral character when demonizing Democrats, he demands consistency. And for that, he is called a scold. Ridiculous. 

    • #39
  10. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    French, like the rest of the NT have taken a principled stand and have unwittingly entered the talking head witness protection program where they are only read by a few of the few. They may as well talk to themselves in the mirror given they appear to be their own favorite audience.

    The reason more and more conservatives support Trump is because he has proven he can win elections and move the conservative agenda forward as far as possible …. and isn’t that the point of it all.

    The NT are nice enough fellows and very bright guys who write well, but after that, most conservatives have found the NT commentariat to be emphatically “non-essential”.

     

    “… read by a few of the few”?? The Dispatch, which features David French, Jonah Goldberg, and others that Trump enthusiasts despise, has been very successful, exceeding the expectations of its founders.

    • #40
  11. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    I had to look twice to make sure the photo wasn’t photoshopped. It looks like the crowd in the Oval Office is re-enacting the Dawn of Man scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, with President Trump as the Monolith.

    Gary, that is hilarious.

    I’m not sure if you’re being facetious, or have actually never seen people praying over someone like this. It is quite common in my circles, when someone is sick, or going on a mission trip, or for a variety of other reasons.

    I’m being semi-facetious, so thanks, Jerry! But no, I’ve never seen anything like this in Catholic circles. We do things a little differently across the Tiber.

    Yeah, we Evangelicals can be a bit weird to outsiders. Catholics, too, in different ways. Let’s not even start about the Pentecostals and the snakes. :)

    It’s a total aside from the OP, but I think you’ll like this story. On Saturday, I had to drop by a local Catholic church to pick up supplies for my daughter’s homeschooling group, which is meeting remotely during the lockdown. The Catholic church lets the group use its facilities, even though we’re mostly Protestant heretics.

    As I drove into the parking lot, they had it taped off in a strange way, to create a drive-thru leading to the main church doors. A priest was standing there, in full regalia, presumably to offer communion or other comfort to any of his parishioners who might drive by. I thought it was quite an excellent thing for him to be doing, theological differences aside.

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    • #41
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    Well, Arians are still heretics.

    • #42
  13. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    French, like the rest of the NT have taken a principled stand and have unwittingly entered the talking head witness protection program where they are only read by a few of the few. They may as well talk to themselves in the mirror given they appear to be their own favorite audience.

    The reason more and more conservatives support Trump is because he has proven he can win elections and move the conservative agenda forward as far as possible …. and isn’t that the point of it all.

    The NT are nice enough fellows and very bright guys who write well, but after that, most conservatives have found the NT commentariat to be emphatically “non-essential”.

     

    “… read by a few of the few”?? The Dispatch, which features David French, Jonah Goldberg, and others that Trump enthusiasts despise, has been very successful, exceeding the expectations of its founders.

    “Very successful” and “exceeding expectations” are unquantified subjective measures.

    Being a niche market(NT commentary) in a niche market(Conservative commentary) means your sugar daddy better have deep pockets.

     

     

    • #43
  14. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    I was using the term in a joking way, and identifying myself as the “heretic.”  I do think that this reclassification was a pretty recent change among Papists, oops, I mean Catholics.  :)

    • #44
  15. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Derryck Green: Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama? Why didn’t French rebuke black Christians for forming a cult around him and his leadership?

    Leaving out French, I hadn’t thought of that aspect, that black Christian leaders didn’t rebuke Obama for his participation in Jeremiah Wright’s church.

    Admittedly, it would have taken a lot of courage.  A black pastor who did that from the pulpit or otherwise would have seen his church empty out.

    Nevertheless, a moral lapse.

    • #45
  16. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    Well, Arians are still heretics.

    From the Catholic perspective, they are formal heretics only if they are Catholic. Arius was a Catholic priest, after all. If a bunch of non-Catholics adopt Arianism (and the ancient heresies are still around today, even if they aren’t called by their old names), we would consider that a different religion (Mormonism might be a modern example).

    • #46
  17. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Derryck Green: Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama?

    Derryck, I do have a question about this.  I looked into it back in 2008, even going so far as to order a book with an essay by one of the founders of the “Black Liberation Theology” taught by Wright.  I think that the author was James Cone.  I did not find it to be Christian at all, and as far as I could tell, Wright is not a Christian.

    Liberation Theology is basically Marxism dressed up in misleading Christian terminology.  Black Liberation Theology seems to be the same thing, with a healthy dose of “we hate whitey.”  I found it quite a disturbing doctrine.

    I did not study it in depth, so perhaps I misunderstood.  The conclusion that I reached was that Obama is not a Christian at all.  He is a Marxist, probably, or at least willing to play along with Marxism while it advanced his political career.

    • #47
  18. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    I was using the term in a joking way, and identifying myself as the “heretic.” I do think that this reclassification was a pretty recent change among Papists, oops, I mean Catholics. :)

    Only if you consider Aquinas as a pretty recent recent commentator!

    • #48
  19. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    French, like the rest of the NT have taken a principled stand and have unwittingly entered the talking head witness protection program where they are only read by a few of the few. They may as well talk to themselves in the mirror given they appear to be their own favorite audience.

    The reason more and more conservatives support Trump is because he has proven he can win elections and move the conservative agenda forward as far as possible …. and isn’t that the point of it all.

    The NT are nice enough fellows and very bright guys who write well, but after that, most conservatives have found the NT commentariat to be emphatically “non-essential”.

     

    “… read by a few of the few”?? The Dispatch, which features David French, Jonah Goldberg, and others that Trump enthusiasts despise, has been very successful, exceeding the expectations of its founders.

    “Very successful” and “exceeding expectations” are unquantified subjective measures.

    Being a niche market(NT commentary) in a niche market(Conservative commentary) means your sugar daddy better have deep pockets.

    True enough. But I hope they do well.  They’re good writers, and I’ve enjoyed them for years. The Right ought to be a big enough tent to hold both Trump boosters, Trump skeptics, and those in between. 

    • #49
  20. bernai Member
    bernai
    @bernai

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):
    I have little doubt that most, if not all, of the vile personal attacks came from false flags and trolls. I’ve seen them do this all over the place. We have all seen these hoaxes debunked, we’ve seen these leftists assume the personae of their most extreme versions of how their enemies think and behave and try to replicate that online.

    This (see quote). I suspect as much, too. I remember that “Trump supporters” and their vile attacks turned me off Trump, for a while, but I came to my senses. “False flags” scream leftie troublemaker. They burn churches, carry Confederate Flags at rallies, troll social media, etc.When their efforts get the reaction they want, they zero in. French might have gotten so many of those because the targeting worked.

    French’s most valuable contribution was in the pro-life debate. He frittered that advantage away and lost the attention of all but the NT readers with his NT illness. I no longer read him. I don’t dislike him and even enjoyed talking to him and sitting at his table on cruises. I just have no interest in reading what he is writing now.

    Ditto Jonah. Fantastic guy and fun speaker on the cruises. I just am not interested in his NT stuff…tired of it. I can at least enjoy GLOP still but quit following him on twitter, only seeing what he writes when someone retweets him. My daughter almost quit her NR subscription because she didn’t want to be mad at him.

    Charlie and Kevin aren’t Trump fans but they write on so many other things and thus have preserved their value. Their Mad Dog and Englishman podcast is every bit as enjoyable as it was before. Ditto the Ricochet and Law Talk podcasts, as well as anything with VDH, I eagerly await each one.

    This….all of this…I too have had to distance myself from their writings.  I enjoy both Jonah and David on certain topics and really enjoy GLOP but I can no longer continue to listen to the constant stream of criticism that always begins with a version of the “ I call balls and strikes” comment and then off to the woodshed.  I will not defend what I believe to be wrong about what Trump does but I will not turn a blind eye to the problems with his opposition either to do so would neither be wise nor prudent.  As a much smarter man than I once said “here I stand and I can do no other, so help me God, amen”.

    • #50
  21. DrewInWisconsin is done with t… Member
    DrewInWisconsin is done with t…
    @DrewInWisconsin

    They’re good writers, and I’ve enjoyed them for years. The Right ought to be a big enough tent to hold both Trump boosters, Trump skeptics, and those in between.

    When someone has already announced that he will not vote for President Trump, and is trying to bully and shame evangelicals into not voting for him either, that’s way beyond skepticism. David French is not “Trump Skeptic.” He is “anti-Trump.”

    • #51
  22. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    OK, this is continuing a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but I wanted to clarify that the term “heretic”, in the Catholic understanding, can only accurately be assigned to a Catholic who has gone astray. Protestants are regarded as “separated brethren”, not heretics (unless someone is using the term in a joking way).

    Well, Arians are still heretics.

    From the Catholic perspective, they are formal heretics only if they are Catholic. Arius was a Catholic priest, after all. If a bunch of non-Catholics adopt Arianism (and the ancient heresies are still around today, even if they aren’t called by their old names), we would consider that a different religion (Mormonism might be a modern example).

    Ok.

    (Except, I think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the Arians. I think the Mormons are tri-theists.)

    • #52
  23. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Derryck Green:

     

    Again, French has never taken black Christians to task for supporting Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton) the way he does with white Evangelicals and Trump (if he has to the same extent, my apologies to him). I would like to know why — specifically in light of the fact that he openly speculated as to what Obama’s true “religious” beliefs were.

    Honestly, Derryck, this ought to be obvious: The reason French doesn’t take black Christians to task is that he’s a white guy, and so he would be condemned as a racist. You can say he lacks courage, I would say it would be suicidal for him to do so. 

    Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama? Why didn’t French rebuke black Christians for forming a cult around him and his leadership? Did he ever implore black Christians to speak up and hold Obama accountable? Did he write numerous pieces on why black Christians were obligated to forfeit their support of Barack Obama or risk losing moral and religious credibility? Did black Christians abandon “the character test” like their white Evangelical counterparts? Were they ever in danger of forfeiting their “competence” like white Evangelicals?

    I can’t speak for French, but I would guess that many white Christians would find it perfectly understandable that black Christians would support Obama as the first black president. Obama’s race was likely a much bigger plus, outweighing any religious objections. Why would any white Christian commit suicide by telling black Christians what they should or should not do? Be realistic!

    I think French would have established more credibility (again, on this issue) had he held his fellow Christians who’re black to the same religious standard he holds white Evangelicals. There would’ve been some consistency in his position.

    That’s simply not possible in 2020. French would have had Black Lives Matter protesters parked on his front lawn. He would be permanently branded as a racist – and for what benefit?

    You ask too much.

    • #53
  24. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    DrewInWisconsin is done with t… (View Comment):

    They’re good writers, and I’ve enjoyed them for years. The Right ought to be a big enough tent to hold both Trump boosters, Trump skeptics, and those in between.

    When someone has already announced that he will not vote for President Trump, and is trying to bully and shame evangelicals into not voting for him either, that’s way beyond skepticism. David French is not “Trump Skeptic.” He is “anti-Trump.”

    He’s still on the Right, and fights the Left. He’s not your enemy. 

    • #54
  25. The Glaswegian Inactive
    The Glaswegian
    @TheGlaswegian

    Bravo!

    • #55
  26. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

     

    Painter Jean (View Comment):
    That’s simply not possible in 2020. French would have had Black Lives Matter protesters parked on his front lawn. He would be permanently branded as a racist – and for what benefit.

    You ask too much.

    That’s an odd statement. Speaking Truth is asking too much?

    Didn’t stop him over Trump.

    He did manage to pen a piece about Obama’s public religion and how it is not recognizable as Christian orthodoxy, but his conclusion doesn’t actually align with his essay.

    Do you think he’d ever claim Trump’s public religion is a soft Christianity?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/obama-really-christian-david-french/

    I would never expect anything so gracious as this from French on Trump.

    • #56
  27. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Derryck Green: Obama was a self-identified Christian who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church — Trinity United Church of Christ (Chicago, Ill.) — for 20 years. Barack and Michelle Obama were married by Wright; Obama had his daughters baptized by Wright, used Trinity’s congregation to launch his political career, and who — again, as a self-identified Christian — passed and supported policies and positions that stood in clear and direct contradiction to the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Why didn’t David French loudly and consistently question or condemn black Christians for continuing to support Barack Obama? Why didn’t French rebuke black Christians for forming a cult around him and his leadership?

    Leaving out French, I hadn’t thought of that aspect, that black Christian leaders didn’t rebuke Obama for his participation in Jeremiah Wright’s church.

    Admittedly, it would have taken a lot of courage. A black pastor who did that from the pulpit or otherwise would have seen his church empty out.

    Nevertheless, a moral lapse.

    Mavis Staples attends / attended Jeremiah Wright’s church.  She is a Gospel singer,  and seems well intentioned and benevolent.   Never could understand her affection for Jeremiah Wright and his church.

    • #57
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Spin (View Comment):
    We did not cede any moral high ground because we chose Trump over Clinton, and defended that choice. Now if you are one of those people going around saying Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread…maybe he’s got a point

    I’m not sure what you mean here Spin. Greatest in what way? He seems like a very good president to me. Other than his performance in office, I dont know the man. I certainly can’t comment on his soul or judge his existence in totality.

    I can guarantee that he’s a sinner though. Because all of us are. So sinner compared to what? To the criminal code? I don’t believe he’s broken the law. To other presidents? There’s a lot to admire about most presidents, but none were near-saints; even the greatest among them were guilty of infidelities while some of the most revered actually owned slaves! Trump’s immorality, as far as I can tell, has centered around infidelity and lust manifesting in adultery. I don’t like that about him, but I dont think it has anything to do with being a good president.

    Conversely being faithful doesn’t guarantee a good person or a good president. The two are in different realms, one of which I can never truly know and in which I should err on the side of compassion and forgiveness, the other realm being politics where worth is measured in actual advance of ideas and values on concrete public policy.

    • #58
  29. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    That’s simply not possible in 2020. French would have had Black Lives Matter protesters parked on his front lawn. He would be permanently branded as a racist – and for what benefit?

    You ask too much.

    I see; it’s Umpire French until the poop gets real. Then it’s turn-around-and-attack-his-compatriots French, as long as his ass is covered. So admirable. So reasonable. So understandable.

    • #59
  30. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    This is why many have written off the NT’s as not really conservatives or as weak sisters unworthy of their positions. Someone like French must know that simply declaring as a conservative gets him branded as racist. He also must know that his stances have earned him some enmity from conservatives. So whose enmity does he care about more? Turns out he’s more worried about the enmity of his opponents than of his compatriots. Im not sure if that’s true or not, but the problem calls much into question, and none of it speaks well of French.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.