My First Things article on the three worlds of evangelicalism featured as a part of the context for a recent debate over the legacy of Tim Keller (see here, here, here, and here among others). In that dispute, some people critiqued my framework. One of their points of dispute is about the dating of what I labeled the “negative world.” I want to explain why their critique of my framework fails to persuade and lacks explanatory power.
I read the links in your previous article, including David French's response, which was a transparent straw man argument. The Positive world becomes the straw man of a "Golden Age," which is refuted by noting that he grew up in the South and witnessed immorality in that era. Your framework only defines the reception of Christianity, not some general level of morality.
But thanks for this detailed response. It is a slam dunk. Christianity had a positive reception at one time in this country, and now it doesn't. Therefore, there must have been a transition at some point in time from positive to negative, and it most likely passed through a neutral stage rather than happening instantly. If the critics don't like the dates you chose, let them make a constructive case for some other dates, instead of whining about yours.
French also seems to reject the positive world based on his experiences growing up with his statement, "Where was this idealized past? There may have been less “woke capital,” but there was more crime, more divorce, and much, much more abortion."
As analysis, this is just silly. Is he seriously trying to argue there wasn't a social stigma attached to divorce or abortion pre-1994? The divorce stigma faded earlier, but women from 1973 through the early 90s weren't "shouting their abortions." Divorce and abortion rates have been dropping because marriage and pregnancy rates have been dropping. Crime rates in certain cities have declined since then, but across much of the country they have risen. The social trust that came from the idea of shared religious faith has been obliterated.
The positive-neutral-negative framework has to do what was the normative experience across the country. People can quibble about the what the dates should be, but there is no question it is an accurate framing. Tim Keller's experience in Manhattan in 1989 was not normative. David French's experience in law school or even the students FIRE defended at mostly large universities, were not what the average American was experiencing related to Christianity. He is not arguing in good faith.
Maybe someone should ask French, "If we moved backwards in time through the colonial days, would we never reach a Positive world with respect to the reception Christians received in society?"
Of course, no one would claim that it was Negative world back to the 1600's. So then he can tell us when it changed. Give us your dates, David.
I read the links in your previous article, including David French's response, which was a transparent straw man argument. The Positive world becomes the straw man of a "Golden Age," which is refuted by noting that he grew up in the South and witnessed immorality in that era. Your framework only defines the reception of Christianity, not some general level of morality.
But thanks for this detailed response. It is a slam dunk. Christianity had a positive reception at one time in this country, and now it doesn't. Therefore, there must have been a transition at some point in time from positive to negative, and it most likely passed through a neutral stage rather than happening instantly. If the critics don't like the dates you chose, let them make a constructive case for some other dates, instead of whining about yours.
French also seems to reject the positive world based on his experiences growing up with his statement, "Where was this idealized past? There may have been less “woke capital,” but there was more crime, more divorce, and much, much more abortion."
As analysis, this is just silly. Is he seriously trying to argue there wasn't a social stigma attached to divorce or abortion pre-1994? The divorce stigma faded earlier, but women from 1973 through the early 90s weren't "shouting their abortions." Divorce and abortion rates have been dropping because marriage and pregnancy rates have been dropping. Crime rates in certain cities have declined since then, but across much of the country they have risen. The social trust that came from the idea of shared religious faith has been obliterated.
The positive-neutral-negative framework has to do what was the normative experience across the country. People can quibble about the what the dates should be, but there is no question it is an accurate framing. Tim Keller's experience in Manhattan in 1989 was not normative. David French's experience in law school or even the students FIRE defended at mostly large universities, were not what the average American was experiencing related to Christianity. He is not arguing in good faith.
Maybe someone should ask French, "If we moved backwards in time through the colonial days, would we never reach a Positive world with respect to the reception Christians received in society?"
Of course, no one would claim that it was Negative world back to the 1600's. So then he can tell us when it changed. Give us your dates, David.