Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Clark Coleman's avatar

A few observations about David French.

1. His first response was "Christians in the Bible belt used to commit immoral acts in their lives, therefore there was no such thing as a Positive World." Many of us pointed out to him that you were talking about the RECEPTION of Christians, not claiming there was some sort of Christian utopia in terms of behavior. He has apparently at least figured out what the model is and no longer takes that tack.

2. Part of his current argument is: He dislikes the possibility that the "retake America" crowd might latch onto the Three Worlds model. So, consequentialism and factionalism rule his thought rather than discussing whether the model is true or not. As you point out, the "retake America" approach is actually incompatible with Negative World, because we are in the minority now, with an openly hostile majority opposing us.

3. Finally, "as far away as Australia" is an ignorant remark. Other countries within the Anglosphere tend to be influential on American political thought more so than Germany, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc. The continental Europeans (e.g. Macron) have noted that a lot of woke lunacy seems to be an Anglosphere contagion that they want to keep out of the continent. The American left cites Anglosphere gun control and single-payer medical care all the time as a model for us. Just as what happens in crazy California tends to show up in other states a couple of decades later, what happens in Australia can be an omen for Americans.

I would also like to reply to Tim Keller: Would you have been censured at Princeton 25 years ago? If not, please stop speaking as if nothing has really changed.

Expand full comment
Benjamin L. Mabry's avatar

Moore's article hits a pet peeve of mine, so I'll trot out the argument I've used for it since I started working in Christian Ed.

1. Christ said that if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek. Nowhere does he say that if someone shanks you, turn the other kidney. Lots of educated theologians have spent gallons of ink on the contextual cultural significance of this verse. It's about being forbearing with insults and disrespect, not against self-defense.

2. Martin Luther, the Great Reformer, addresses this in his political pamphlets. You may feel obligated to refrain from self-defense. That is a right under freedom of conscience, that only you can decide for yourself. You may not, however, decide this on behalf of others in the community of Christ. In fact, every Christian has an affirmative obligation to defend one's "brethren, wives, children, and homes" (Neh 4:14) from attacks by the forces of the Evil One. To turn the cheek of an innocent one for them, to make them defenseless either through action or inaction, is to materially contribute to evil. When a brother or sister is attacked, we are obliged to come to their aid in whatever way is situationally appropriate and relevant, up to and including military defense of fellow Christian commonwealths.

3. Russell Moore is a bad faith actor engaged in bad-faith argumentation. We have all seen him demand Christians engage in aggressive political action in favor of whatever absurd and irrelevant political cause du jour has him riled up in the moment. He is only offended because the particular cause under consideration - defending the freedom of conscience, faith, and participation of authentic Christians from aggressive overreach by an alien religion and a pagan government - is one that he doesn't favor. Like anyone else whose ethics are purely situational and partisan, it's just the bloviating hot air of a gasbag spewing forth its vileness.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts