In the New York Times this morning, David French returns to his familiar theme: betrayal. An evangelical Presbyterian and an erstwhile staunch conservative, French made waves several years ago for his strong opposition to Donald Trump. When others on the right attacked him (and, inexcusably, his family), French was understandably rocked to the core. He began an ideological peregrination that landed him at the Times. He reliably cranks out columns explaining how the Christian Right came to be infected with a Trumpian fever – and how he, along with a small faithful remnant, avoided the contagion.
I think so too, but with respect, one does feel he tells the story rather often. And he tells it in a forum liable to be hostile and contemptuous of the people he's calling out. I worry that David reinforces the derision that NYT readers already feel towards conservative Christians, rather than getting them to think again.
Admirable journey you took us on, Hugo. The peregrine flies, but the world turns too. Bit of a recursive process going on quite openly now, the sane seeing their party go insane, insanity punishing sanity and rooting for sanity to prevail is betrayal to most, heroism to some; but the flux, the constancy of sanity produces new connections, forges new alliances, expands its continent. I think of how the hours of sun grow and then shrink imperceptibly when we're closest to solstice, but give it a few of months and either dark or daylight is dominant. Loved the Stanley story and the clever flourish with the cops. This is a time to make common cause with the Stanley's among us.
What I find compelling about French is how rarely his critics on the right (of which there are many) attempt to argue that he is wrong. It's always that he's criticizing the wrong people, or on the wrong side, or just general criticism of his attitude, or just baldly saying that we shouldn't listen to him because if we do it will lead to right wing Christians being less powerful. It's so rare for his critics to even try to dispute the truth of what he's saying.
Why on earth do you think French is sincere? I think that's an extremely generous but entirely unsubstantiated clam - what's he done to prove it? To me, somebody who can dismiss abortion as trivial issue (like French) isn't likely to be a Christian. My guess is that he's abandoned his faith as well (but he realizes it's not profitable to admit he's abandoned the faith). Granted, I can't judge him, but I don't think you can either - so why assume his good faith? I've just seen no evidence of it, and there should be evidence of it, no?
Why do you think he's not sincere? Not only did his adoption of a black daughter lead to horrific prejudice, mean-spiritedness, and death threats in response, he and his wife Nancy have stuck their necks out in exposing cases of abuse the last several years (e.g., the child abuse at Kanakuk camp). They regularly take difficult, but principled, stances. Even long-time friends who think David has shifted ideologically the last few years say that they are very godly people.
Two other thoughts: First, David and Nancy have not lost faith. They now attend a multi-racial, perhaps predominantly black Christian church in Nashville. Second, David does not dismiss abortion; instead, he says his pro-life convictions have not changed. You are free to disbelieve him, of course, but his decades-long track record of being strongly pro-life is not in dispute.
It was quite fine for David French to tell his side of the story.
I think so too, but with respect, one does feel he tells the story rather often. And he tells it in a forum liable to be hostile and contemptuous of the people he's calling out. I worry that David reinforces the derision that NYT readers already feel towards conservative Christians, rather than getting them to think again.
Admirable journey you took us on, Hugo. The peregrine flies, but the world turns too. Bit of a recursive process going on quite openly now, the sane seeing their party go insane, insanity punishing sanity and rooting for sanity to prevail is betrayal to most, heroism to some; but the flux, the constancy of sanity produces new connections, forges new alliances, expands its continent. I think of how the hours of sun grow and then shrink imperceptibly when we're closest to solstice, but give it a few of months and either dark or daylight is dominant. Loved the Stanley story and the clever flourish with the cops. This is a time to make common cause with the Stanley's among us.
Thank you, sir!
What I find compelling about French is how rarely his critics on the right (of which there are many) attempt to argue that he is wrong. It's always that he's criticizing the wrong people, or on the wrong side, or just general criticism of his attitude, or just baldly saying that we shouldn't listen to him because if we do it will lead to right wing Christians being less powerful. It's so rare for his critics to even try to dispute the truth of what he's saying.
Why on earth do you think French is sincere? I think that's an extremely generous but entirely unsubstantiated clam - what's he done to prove it? To me, somebody who can dismiss abortion as trivial issue (like French) isn't likely to be a Christian. My guess is that he's abandoned his faith as well (but he realizes it's not profitable to admit he's abandoned the faith). Granted, I can't judge him, but I don't think you can either - so why assume his good faith? I've just seen no evidence of it, and there should be evidence of it, no?
Why do you think he's not sincere? Not only did his adoption of a black daughter lead to horrific prejudice, mean-spiritedness, and death threats in response, he and his wife Nancy have stuck their necks out in exposing cases of abuse the last several years (e.g., the child abuse at Kanakuk camp). They regularly take difficult, but principled, stances. Even long-time friends who think David has shifted ideologically the last few years say that they are very godly people.
Two other thoughts: First, David and Nancy have not lost faith. They now attend a multi-racial, perhaps predominantly black Christian church in Nashville. Second, David does not dismiss abortion; instead, he says his pro-life convictions have not changed. You are free to disbelieve him, of course, but his decades-long track record of being strongly pro-life is not in dispute.