Posted on 05/11/2018 12:00:41 PM PDT by Liberty7732
Writing in National Review, David French launched another attack on evangelical Christians who support President Trump, calling them out as sinful compromisers denying the supreme purpose of God in their lives.
I wholeheartedly reject French’s rebuke as valid. It is wrong biblically, philosophically and, by extension, politically.
By way of context, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in 1982 when I was 17. Due to my submission to the authority of Scripture, I likewise fall into the category of what is commonly called “evangelical” — a term that is as frequently misunderstood as it is misused. I mention these points upfront since it is people like me who sit in the audience to which French was aiming his rebuke.
It landed hollow, however, because it is fraught with nonsense arguments, non-sequiturs and self-incriminating irony that French appears to miss. Below is just a brief glance at some of the main problems with his accusation.
⟹ French began the piece by asking what the ultimate goal of a Christian’s life should be. The lead was obvious: Evangelical Christians who support Trump have strayed from God’s purpose for their lives. French was in essence invoking God’s supreme purpose in Christ as the basis for why an Evangelical should not support Trump. However, the entire argument is nonsense. Everything that follows his opening question is non sequitur to that initial question. Just because pursuing the “common good” (i.e., civil righteousness) of one’s culture is not a Christian’s ultimate goal in this age, it does not follow that it is not an incredibly important responsibility. It is silly to negate numerous areas of God-ordained responsibilities on the premise of God’s ultimate purpose. French would undoubtedly argue that support for President Trump is antithetical to what is good for a nation; but that is an altogether different issue than his main and opening premise.
⟹ Voting for Trump and continuing to support the vast majority of his subsequent policies is without question a pursuit of the “common good” of our nation and culture. The choice to vote for Hillary Clinton, or even abstain from voting because Trump is a flawed man, is arguably a choice to pursue (or passively permit) overt and vile wickedness to prevail in the life of a nation. Present space does not permit me to itemize the progressive agenda and examine it in the light of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True — virtues that are revealed supremely in the character and nature of God. Suffice it to say that God expects (and will hold accountable) all post-Fall humans to live according to how we were created. Scripture describes it as God’s “image and likeness.” Even those people groups who deny His existence have long recognized fixed, uniform, and universal moral principles that are a part of our very moral fabric.
⟹ French has no authority to state that Evangelical Christians who voted for and support Trump are guilty of “sin.” He made no case from Scripture; it was merely a fiat judgment of his own making. Ironically, making such a judgment based solely on the basis of one’s opinion is a very serious charge. I don’t think French perceived the irony.
⟹ On the other hand, a positive case can be made, contra French, that one of the God-ordained responsibilities of a Christian is to actively oppose evil in one’s culture and promote that which is good. Again, Clinton and nearly every position she actively pursues is contrary, not only to the common good (viz., natural law), but to the very moral fabric of humans made in God’s image and likeness. While it is true that such responsibilities do not fall under the Christian’s relationship to God as Redeemer (in Christ); it is without question the duty of all human beings who relate to God as their Creator (whether they admit it or not). It is called loving your neighbor.
⟹ As already noted, French’s article made no sense. I am not stating this because I disagree with his assertions (which I do), but he demonstrates absolutely no correlation between his opinions and everything that goes before and after them. While he is certainly entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to determine his own facts — particularly ones that when disagreed with makes one guilty of “sin” in God’s sight.
Interestingly, if I were to take French’s own actions as my lead, I would have to conclude that the obligation of a Christian is to scold Evangelicals who voted for Trump and publicly shame them for this “sin” — and that this would be my supreme purpose.
I thought we were supposed to be more pragmatic and moderate.
I used to enjoy reading David French - until he got infected by Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Sad.
Gosh, I'm glad to hear that.
I was worried about his opinion of me.
Totally agree. David French is misguided.
Guys like French and Cal Thomas are always alleging that evangelicals who support Trump are not spiritual enough or do little to serve Him. Odd because I haven’t heard them pointing the finger at evangelicals supporting any other candidates.
The Never-Trumpers don’t say it forthrightly, but their position comes down to Trump rejecting Bushism, i.e. “conservative” globalism. But Bushism was and is a pox on the Republican Party.
Our job as Christians (Romans 12) is to present ourselves to God as a living sacrifice, and thus to be useful to His purposes. We are to utilize whatever gifts He bestows on us to maximum advantage toward God’s purposes.
In the process, some of us are persuaded to have this or that sensibility, others are persuaded somewhat differently. These are peripheral issues vis-a-vis salvation. Romans 14 is crucial in this regard. First of all, it asks rhetorically, “who are you to judge another man’s servant?” And it concludes the section, with respect to peripheral issues, by saying “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
Every outpost of Christianity, be it liberal or conservative, has its cadre of Pharisees. So it seems to be with French.
“But this crowd that does not know the Law, they are under a curse.” — John 7:49
French and Thomas use the same line of argument the Devil used with Jesus in the wilderness. “You know you are hungry, thirsty and just want what is best for the world. I will give you all these things if you will kneel.” Jesus demurred. French and Thomas did not.
Trump is a warrior, not a priest. Evangelicals do not assign Christ-like qualities to Trump. They pray for him at all times, guide him when possible, and support him in his efforts to return this nation to its Christian heritage.
Evangelicals recognize that Trump is his own man and will not be bought by them or anyone. He has that singular quality missing in nearly all politicians, integrity.
French is just carrying on his anti-Trump rhetoric, trying to diminish Trump’s support among evangelicals. He was anti-Trump before, and he is anti-Trump now.
Sorry David but president Donald J. Trump is not calling on evangelicals to worship him like God. He is a man and scripture even says “o the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men. ” So go reexamine yourself instead of your brethren.
I love it when cerebral narcissists get taken down a peg.
since when do americans take advice from the french...
How the heck did Sarah Palin ever get involved with these Frenches?
(Oh, right... all those RINO Bushies on McCain’s campaign... Schmidt, Wallaces, etc., probably recommended Nancy and David French. They are probably all in the same RINO Globalist home group).
David French advocated that evangelicals were supposed to vote for a Mormon elder in the 2012 Presidential Election, what is he talking about here?
Voting for an anti Christian person who advocates anti Christian positions, such as Mormons, is a SIN... so what is David French talking about?
French is Bill Kristol’s sock puppet. He is a shill for the neocons, it’s how French puts food on the table.
So French’s syllogism is: Donald Trump is a sinner who had a one-night stand with a porn star. Evangelicals should not support sinners. Ergo, evangelicals should not support Trump as president.
So who does French think is worthy of support as president? Evan McMullin.
Evan McMullin is a never-married man in his 40s who was raised by a lesbian mother who ‘married’ another woman. Presumably we are supposed to believe per French that McMullin has never engaged in sexual sin?
Evan McMullin is a Mormon. The belief system of Mormons is considered a gross heresy and a great sin by evangelical Christians.
But evangelical Christians should support Evan McMullin and refuse to support Donald Trump, because sinner.
Evidently Bill Kristol has the same view of evangelicals as the Washington Post in their famous formulation: “largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.”
Obviously, THAT’S DIFFERENT, since French did it. He uses the same equivocation that liberals do; it’s ok for them to do a certain thing, but conservatives are NOT allowed to do the same.
M-O-O-N that spells Apostate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.