As many of you know, David French was going to speak on a panel at the PCA’s General Assembly on the problem of polarization in the evangelical church. There was an uproar because French is pretty polarizing, and so the whole enterprise was cancelled.
Now David French has just written a piece about it, entitled “The Day My Old Church Canceled Me Was a Very Sad Day.” I didn’t have anything to do with the panel imbroglio, but it does seem that I nevertheless made my way into French’s discussion of it.
“On several occasions, men approached my wife when I was out of town, challenging her to defend my writing and sometimes quoting a far-right pastor named Douglas Wilson. Wilson is a notorious Christian nationalist and slavery apologist who once wrote that abolitionists were “driven by a zealous hatred of the word of God” and that “slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the war or since.”
David French, “The Day My Old Church Canceled Me Was a Very Sad Day.”
Rather than get into any response to these particular items here—as I think that some of my more faithful readers might have my standard responses to such anti-Wilson SPLC-style talking points memorized by this point—let me do something a bit different.
A panel like this at the PCA GA really wasn’t a good fit. A general assembly is not a conference, and shouldn’t be treated like a conference. At the same time, there really is an important place for that sort of discussion. So, in that spirit, and with no guile, we would like to invite David French to come to Moscow, where we would give him an opportunity to talk about polarization in American culture and in the church. We would of course respond in some way, but it would be a civilized way. The invitation is open.
I mean, at the end of the day, shouldn’t we polarizing extremists stick together? I mean, he clearly has some views that are pretty out there. My definition of an extremist would be someone who hasn’t been condemned by the SPLC.
Comments are open, and please behave.
After such inflammatory words by French I’d be very surprised if he accepted this offer, but him actually sitting down with Wilson would be more exciting than any pay-per-view event. I mean I know it’s only a “discussion”, but with such differing views I can’t help but think it would quickly turn into more of a debate.
A discussion with Mr. French is a great idea! I hope he accepts. A few years ago CrossPolitic had a very interesting, insightful, and respectful discussion with him.
The PCA requires its members to vow that they “submit… to the government and discipline of this church”. In deserting his congregation without any sort of a reason (didn’t move away, didn’t change his theological positions, etc.), Mr. French has manifestly made a gross violation of this vow.
My question is why anyone in the PCA ever thought it was a good idea to be lectured by a deserter? Are the men who suggested that a schismatic be recruited to teach their elders being brought up on charges?
Where is the repentance from any of the people involved?
And Luther really needed to submit to the pope?
Not really parallel. Luther raised some theological issues and got told he had to shut up, and was thrown out when he wouldn’t.
French stomped out because of perceived bad treatment by other church members, despite the intervention of the church leadership.
Doug, over the years you have offered to pay for the following people to come to your church and speak: Anthony Bradley Thabiti Anyabwile Karen Swallow Prior David French All of these people are on your left. I think I know what you’re trying to accomplish – to show your opponents up as people who are afraid to debate you, and if one of them ever takes you up on your offer, you’re pretty sure you could mop the floor with them in a one on one debate. And there’s nothing wrong with either of these motives. However, it does… Read more »
“So why not invite some people on your right to Moscow to debate?”
The people you list are not to his right. You’re using the left’s definition of “right” to mean “more racially objectionable”.
By and large, most of the harsh critics of Jews are to Wilson’s left, supporting large scale government interference on most levels to ensure the “correct” amount of success that their preferred groups are “due”. They repeat systemtic racism arguments from the far left verbatim. That they’re white and not brown doesn’t make them any less far left.
Wanderer,
Wilson defended Catholicism as legitimate (though flawed) devotion to Christ against James White (Wilson’s position being the more liberal.). He also debated someone to the “right” of him regarding if the disposition of homosexual attraction is itself a sin, not just a disorientation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLA4RNB-FNc
Just as an aside….. Catholicism is not legitimate, as “christian” anyway. Catholicism denies the sufficiency of Christ which makes then non-christian and therefore should not be defended. Just because an institution claims Christ does not make them “christian.” What does “claim” mean anyway? Muslims “claim” christ, was and is, but not as Lord. There may be Christians in the Catholic Church but I assure you, if they are true believers, they are wondering why they continue to belong and should be in the process of coming out.
What if Wilson and French wrote a point/counter-point book together and travelled around for a bit and did a few friendly debates, followed by a behind the scenes documentary. I’m sure such a thing has never been done before, but, you know… ;)
It does seem a bit embarrassing that a rank atheist apologist would be more willing to engage a “far-right Christian” in a debate than another Christian. It simply IS embarrassing that Hitchens and Wilson could become fast friends in the midst of their polarizing disagreements, but French cannot countenance such a thing.
It seems to me we observe a related phenomenon in those who are denying RFK Jr. a place at officially sanctioned presidential debates. Confusing and conflating political authority (power) with epistemic authority (truth), and making the latter subservient to the the former instead of the other way around, is the obstinate path of fools.
Does anyone know what kind of church French attends now? I gather He’s not PCA anymore.
Strong Tower Bible Church, a non-affiliated Baptist church with continuationist leanings. Its listed core values include “authenticity”, “diversity”, and “flexibility”.
It’s kind of funny that one of the core tenets of the Strong Tower Bible Church is its flexibility.
As someone who has benefited greatly from the writings of both Doug and David, I sincerely hope this sit-down happens. If conducted in the spirit of Christian graciousness, it would be well worth the effort.
It is true that Doug has invited a number of folks to Moscow, and I am not sure how many, if any have taken up the offer. What I can tell you is that I would be more than happy to take up the offer, because I would love to sit down with Doug in order to talk about things such as polarization, Christian nationalism, Jan. 6th, R.J. Rushdoony, Donald Trump, and the fact that Trump’s spiritual advisor is Paula White, along with discussing how in the world anyone could ever come up with the idea that when Paul told… Read more »
Well, if Paul wanted everyone to become a Christian, which he did, and every Christian to keep growing in grace and pressing on, which he did, then ‘every thought captive’ is surely something he’s working on, even if it had a particular application he set forth in the Corinthian situation. And surely you apply texts dealing with particular situations more broadly?
I wish I had seen this earlier because I would love to have the conversation. All you have done in this response is to concede the fact that Paul had no intension of communicating to us as Christians to “take every thought captive”. You also demonstrate that one would have to do a whole lot of mental gymnastics in order to use the passage in such a way. So then, exactly how broad are we allowed to go? I mean here we have Paul giving a warning to the Corinthians that if they do not straighten up their act, they… Read more »
The whole panel was ill-conceived, with or without French. As it’s not a conference but a meeting strictly for church leaders for the purpose of church business, the subject of the panel was not being addressed to the people it was aimed at (congregations) but rather to the people who were….what? Supposed to sit there and nod along with the idea that their congregations should behave better, and go home and lecture them about their faults? It gained notoriety and was ultimately canceled because of French, but it was a really poor idea for a panel discussion at GA to… Read more »
What would elders need to guide people through? Very little needs to be said beyond “If you vote for someone who promotes this kind of pure evil in his administration, you’re on Satan’s side.”
“Political polarization” is French-Moore speak.
How about you invite bro French to a debate/discussion? “Christian nationalism” means something, and it’s a good thing. I think you’d affirm, he’d deny, and it’d be a worthwhile discussion.