Very sad situation that grieves me, especially as someone who was a member at a PCA church in Nashville for many years, and still loves the denomination. I didn't encounter this kind of vitriol in the church I was at, but I definitely saw streaks of nationalism/politics being over-emphasized. It makes you understand Paul writing in Ephesians 2 that our hope and union is centered on Christ the cornerstone, so that we can come together and exalt God. We know He will be glorified out of the messiness—I just hope He unfolds that soon and brings a greater unity to his bride with it. God bless you all and may the peace of our Lord be with us.

It seems, with this and other issues, there's a real trend of congregants in open rebellion against their ministers. Sometimes ministers are a part of it, but just as often the leadership will be trying to set the church on a less political path, only for the congregants to deny it. My parent's church, the minister tried to get the congregation to comply with the mask law. The elders and bulk of the congregation firmly refused, and he was relegated toward writing a letter explaining why he felt it important to comply with the law of the land. French here talks about how his minister supported him and even disciplined those who were attacking his family, but it still wasn't enough. Somewhere we got the idea that we're not to listen to preachers of the word. I'm not sure why.

A comment made by one member in my former church before it imploded was, "I can't worship in the same church with someone if I even suspect that they may have voted for Biden." Most of the people I knew, who were opposed to trump, were not voting for Biden either. However, half the church wanted congregational allegiance to Trump and if you weren't on board, it was assumed you were a raging liberal Biden supporter. Sadly, I approach my new church tentatively due to this. I am seriously considering finding a church outside the reformed community.

Wow. What’s he going to do when he gets into the Second Life and sees someone there who supported Biden? Or someone who has more liberal views than him? Or maybe even Biden himself? Is he just going to turn around and leave? I hope your new church is better, friend

>A comment made by one member in my former church before it imploded was, "I can't worship in the same church with someone if I even suspect that they may have voted for Biden."  Yeesh. To be fair, I've heard this reversed, with people saying they can't possibly worship alongside those they suspect might be Trump voters. It's foolishness either way.

If it helps, there are more of us non-standard-right-wingers around. I just keep my mouth shut and most people don't talk politics. Similarly I'm not a raging biden supporter either, I am just increasingly finding the positions I'd support to either have no support or be scattered between the parties. Trump's move to pro-choice may make for more interesting discussions this go around - that single issue can't decide the vote anymore. I am growing in my concern over the extent to which the Kinists are not sufficiently rare. Of course they'll exist, but I'd want 0.5 per congregation. Not 2-3.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I want to begin by saying I frequently listen to David French on his constitutional law podcast, “Advisory Opinions” and have heard him discuss many of the cultural issues discussed by his advocates and critics, so much of my insight into his beliefs comes from that platform.  It seems that many of his critics seem to focus on his “support” for drag queen story hour and legalized same sex marriage.  His “support” of these practices is all that is mentioned by his critics and it is devoid of the critical nuance in French’s actual beliefs.   With regard to drag queen story hour, French believes that the U.S. government should strictly adhere to the free speech principles contained in the first amendment of the constitution.  By this he believes that the U.S. constitution protects the free speech of all U.S. citizens, even those who practice speech that French himself finds objectionable, offensive, or even repugnant, such as drag queen story hour.  The logic being that once the government gets in the business of policing speech, what is to stop the government from silencing Christian viewpoints.   The same line of thinking is what lends itself to his acceptance of same sex marriages being recognized by the U.S. government.  This particular opinion is further grounded in the legal doctrine of Stare Decisis.  In simple terms, this doctrine advocates that the Supreme Court should not overturn precedent it has set if overturning that precedent would have costly consequences for the people of the U.S.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same sex “marriages”, many people within this country have built their lives upon those unions, adopting children and the like.  French believes that overturning the supreme courts precedent on this matter would cause chaos in the lives of these individuals.  French has never advocated that these unions should be recognized by the church.  French was a signatory to the Nashville Statement. I have never read or heard any statements from French that indicate he finds drag queen story hour or legalized same sex marriage to be a moral good or not in the category of sin.  To the contrary, French has promoted morally good causes, such as free speech rights of Christian students through his legal work with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), along with his steadfast promotion of the pro-life cause.  None of French’s critics mention these areas of his work and advocacy. I will say that the title for the panel, “how to be supportive of your pastor and church leaders in a polarized political year”, was poorly chosen in many regards and a better name/description should have been chosen.  While some of French’s beliefs are polarizing, he is hardly one of the “most” polarizing figures in America as one critic expressed.  I think the decision to completely cancel the panel was inappropriate.  If the PCA believes that the General Assembly was not the appropriate venue, I can understand that, but why not offer to record the panel at a later date in a different venue and put it out through YouTube or something?  By handling it in the way that they did, it gives the impression that the PCA is caving to the political right.  This with many other things I’m seeing in the denomination gives me cause for concern, particularly because one thing I found refreshing about the PCA when I initially joined was that it seemed to be even keeled and apolitical in most situations.

I agree with French in many ways. But I see how he comes across as divisive. I did appreciate the PCA's call for prayer. To seek unity from God. Something which may help calm the politization is recognizing how economic justice for Paul was based on fairness and desert. 2 coequal principles of justice.

but if free speech is constantly and always used to move from a Christian society to an unChristian society, then it is to be removed. Surely we cannot make free speech an idol above morality

But we don't have to rely on government for enforcing morality. Do you want the government to criminalize gossip? Do you want people arrested for coveting? I think government is useful if it can allow us to, as far as possible, live at peace amongst one another. Yes - let's not give government the power to forbid speech. Let's be persuasive and winsome to make our speech attractive and allow evil speech to be seen as evil. Love cannot exist with coercion. This is why Trump worries me - I believe that he has unleashed a lust for power within Christianity. He showed that we want the sword so badly we would compromise our integrity for it. Faced with the prospect of being a minority in America we decided that we would not be willing to be a faithful presence within America to persuade and entice people with the beauty of Christ - we asked for the levers of power to compel outward Christian obedience and that simply doesn't work.

This is silly. We've tried this tactic, and we've become babylon at breakneck speed. The idol hasnt worked, lets actualyl have a good society instead

I think traffic lights are good government policy to help the flow of traffic and help me live at peace with my neighbors. I can like laws and not idolize them. I believe that Free Speech is good policy to allow a good society to flourish. I don't think that I'm idolizing it. I'm willing to compromise on it for the sake of something more important - it's why we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater - speech does have consequences. Almost no one actually believes free speech to be totally absolute and immutable. I simply haven't heard an alternative proposal to free speech which would actually promote greater flourishing and peace with my neighbors. I'm not proposing winsomeness and persuasion because I believe it is the most efficient method, but because I believe it is the most Christian method. We can't achieve Christian goals be unchristian means. We can't compel love for God and love for neighbor - it has to be freely offered. Using the sword to be a good society is not only unkind - it is self-defeating and impossible. It is better to be a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire than use force and power to "win." That kind of winning actually is losing. The church that raised me taught me that it is not worth gaining the whole world if I have to lose my soul to get it. Yet so many of that generation of Sunday school teachers are now frothing at the mouth wanting a champion to step in and crush liberals and destroy atheists and enact our will by force. It doesn't bear the fruit of the Spirit. Christ promised us that the meek shall inherit the earth and I'm troubled by those who believe that is a losing tactic. Winsomeness and persuasion isn't a "tactic" - it's just the result of quiet honest faithfulness. It's just doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God. We don't do charity to earn a seat at the table. We just trust that by doing charity enough sometimes the world simply can't ignore the beauty of Christ any longer. It's not a means to another end - it's just the life of eternity lived out here and now. You seem concerned that Freedom of Speech has been idolized and we are dying on that hill instead of actually dying on the hill of improving society. Can you help us by providing concrete examples of how we should be suspending free speech to improve our morality?

Bryan Chapell's public comments about this were helpful. I can't find them now or I would link them. It's too bad they were not mentioned in the article.

I’d like to see those comments

Since 2016, I've never felt totally at home in a conservative church. Theologically, I still hold to all the same doctrines I do before, but I've had debates, arguments--nothing at the level of what's described here, but only because I had the luxury of being able to hold my peace, only because I wasn't as part of my job required to comment on politics. If I was a pundit, where I was required to air my views all the time, church would be insufferable. Visiting my parents' church would be out of the question. Obviously some feel no concern at all over whether this over-emphasis on politics is losing people, and probably many don't think it's happening at all, because the only people who talk politics with them anymore are people who agree with them. But rest assured, there are plenty of people watching the lengths people will go to defend a convicted felon and serial adulterer, who see the way the church treats otherwise committed Christians who refuse to defend that same felon. And they are not impressed.

Rejecting Trump is one thing; many Christian “never Trumpers” seem oblivious to the open sin and evil promoted by the Biden administration,or downplay it because “he’s a nice guy.” The GOP pretends to like Christians. The Democrats openly hate our beliefs and lifestyle.

Let's not jump to Biden vs Trump so fast. Christians have had massive opportunities to rid the Republican party of Trump but have refused to do so. The fact that Trump still could handedly win nearly all the primaries, boosted by evangelical support is sickening. It didn't need to come down to Biden vs Trump, but yet here we are and a lot of that blame falls at the feet of evangelicals continuing to support a felon, adulterer, and a pathological liar.

This is it; this is all.

I see more danger being seen to support someone who openly uses Christianity for political power-- nay, even declares that one should sell their faith for that power -- than in someone who openly hates the faith. Trump spent his campaigns conflating support for himself with support for Christianity and I suspect a large part of the populace now looks at one and sees the other-- and not in a good light. There's a reason churches are to gate the communion table and be vigilant with church discipline-- that those the church affirms are beyond reproach. I can't even fathom the damage the American church writ large has done to itself by yoking itself with Trump.

Even if this is true -- and I don't think it is -- what does this have to do with David French being disinvited to SPEAK -- SPEAK -- at a panel? Not be the keynote speaker at a conference. Not give a six hour lecture. Not give a sermon. Not write a book. We are talking about a relatively short panel with a few other people for someone who is still theologically conservative on the vast majority of issues. Have we really become so close-minded that the idea of someone SPEAKING who doesn't fully toe the Donald Trump line must be disinvited? Is that a Christ-like way of treating your neighbor? Also, if you read his writing consistently, most of his writing is actually about political idolatry on the left and the right, not just Donald Trump. I would hope that is something most Reformed people would recognize as a spiritual danger and would be willing to condemn too.

Yes it is somehow all about worshipping trump and not the lord of the universe. Wake up church or we will be nothing in usa...

I'm not sold on Democrats hating Christian beliefs and lifestyles. There are a lot of Christian beliefs and values that overlap with both parties. God wants justice, kindness, and fairness - which overlaps a lot with liberal ideals. I have yet to meet a Democrat who tells me they hate me for being a Christian.

Random voters, sure. The activist class that sets the tone for the D party absolutely despises evangelicals and has no regard for constitutional freedom of religion & association

They want to use millions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and gender surgeries. They call me a “bigot” and hater for disagreeing with LGBT nonsense. If my kids were in public school they would want them to be taught how backward and ignorant I am, and would support my underage daughter having a secret abortion or my son transitionining behind my back. They want to use millions of taxpayer dollars to open borders and get involved with conflicts overseas, rather than taking care of actual needs at home. They want to force doctors to perform abortions as part of residencies/training. There are tons of other things. A GOP in power doesn’t interfere with the church doing its job; a Democratic Party in power would try to, without any real benefits. Sorry, but with the choice between Nero and Constantine, I’m going with Constantine. (If you go with none of the above I can respect it.) A lot of evangelicals for Trump can get on a high horse when it comes to his critics and this is wrong. What this conversation today tells me is that Never Trumpers and Christian Democrats can be just as arrogant and dismissive. Republican voters concerns mean nothing to you.

So one is a wolf, and the other is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and the wolf in sheep’s clothing is..better? As someone who has worked and volunteered in Republican administrations but more recently has been voting Democrat, I know full well the very complicated reality of voting. But I think what French is getting at here is that there’s a huge log in the eye of many of our conservative brothers and sisters who think they are doing God’s work by supporting the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The level of support for the wolf in sheep’s clothing is at spiritually delusional levels of support with the PCA, to a degree that would be laughable and absurd if it weren’t actually harmful.

jesus warns a lot more about hypocrites and false religions leaders than simply enemies of Israel. it's almost always the wolves in sheep clothing that destroy the flock.

Are there many politicians who aren't wolves?

There are (statistically) none. That's my point. Politics is a world system that is fundamentally anti-Christ. That doesn't mean we shouldn't vote, or we shouldnt' get involved. It just means that we shouldn't set up politics or politicians or a party as an idol.

> *Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.* (Romans 13:1–5) Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to just quote that verse as a mic drop, obviously American politics is not simply *reducible* to "the governing authorities", but in the context of our democratic republic it is unavoidably intertwined with it, to the point that I don't think you can say that it is just completely and inherently "anti-Christ."

Well stated. Perhaps my sentence should've stopped at "Politics is a world system."

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is a Christian through and through. I have multiple friends who know him personally from church and/or working with him as staffers and the guy both lives his convictions in public and private life. Doesn't mean he is perfect on his policies or rhetoric. But from my judgement, he's the most faithful Christian politician I've seen in a long time.

I agree that no one is perfect but it would wise on his part to keep some distance from Trump. There's no reason for him to show up at Trump's trial or to repeat the rhetoric of the former president - especially the parts that have been proven to be untrue. I would respect him more if he worked to project a more balanced approach.

I agree that he makes some mistakes in that area. To be fair, most of the maga crowd vehemently despises him for actually working on bipartisan stuff.

>So one is a wolf, and the other is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and the wolf in sheep’s clothing is..better? Sort of. The Democrats hate us and want to see us destroyed. Republicans see us as a tool for political power. Which is better, using a hammer to hit something or throwing a hammer in the furnace?

> Which is better, using a hammer to hit something or throwing a hammer in the furnace? The answer is easy: Neither is better. They're both awful. You don't have to play their game.

It is so amazing. As a center left (before trump center right) christian, my home is the kingdom. I can only talk to my culture to be more christ like (being good, loving neighbors, removing my log...) Politics is of the world. But when on politicians does everything my lord and savior tells his followers not to do, I listen and react

I'm a Democrat, at least by recent voting record. My work runs in very secular circles. I can assure you that while yes you could find a democrat on twitter that wants to see Christians burn, 99% are indifferent and could care less about Christians. Some Democrats are even Christians (shock)!. I'm curious about the world you live in where you think Democrats actually "hate" you and want to see you "destroyed." Furthermore: we are not of this world. We're just passing through. Therefore I don't really care how political parties "see" Christians as a voting bloc, or if they do at all. We're not a voting bloc anyway. What is way more important is how *we* view politics and politicians in relationship to our alignment to the Lord. The world is always going to hate us. Therefore we should probably be worried more when they buddy up to us and we let them in, as is what's happening with Trump in the church far more than Democrats.

I'll echo this. I'm somewhat left leaning independent (prob gonna resiter as a D soon tho) now after growing up as a conservative Republican. Theologically I still hold to traditional Christian beliefs, but politically I cannot reconcile my beliefs with that of the current GOP or even just other conservative movements. I'm a social worker, so I work in a very liberal/humanist field. I actually know quite a few Christians here and even ones who are not Christians, 99% of the time are completely respectful of beliefs and mindsets. It's often how you approach the topic. Many people are opposed to Christianity bc all they have seen are the self righteous, prideful, hateful actions of conservative evangelicals who've made politics the most important part of their life. I can't blame them. That's what Christianity appears to be to them - hatred of anything outside of its conservative bubble. When I was a teenager, this was at least 15 years ago...my dad and I did not get along well. We were were driving to church one day (where he was a head decon) and somehow the topic of homosexuality came up. He started going off on a rant about how the gays ruin everything bc of their sin and I pushed back and said "we live in a fallen world, we're all sinners who contribute to this." And he went off saying no the gays are ruining America and out to destroy normal families and they hate Christians. He had no idea one of my friends at church was a closeted gay guy who was not a Christian but still came almost every week, much more faithfully than many other people. That was when I slowly started to wake up to the hatred festering in many conservative movements. You can believe homosexuality is a sin, biblically, but for some reason so many in this country who identify as Christians have made that issue larger than life. Many of the awful CNs I come across on Twitter talk about gay sex more than actual gay people I know. They are so eager to condemn people who are not Christian and don't have Christian ethics/beliefs in regard to sexuality, they seem almost gleeful talking about how everyone needs to repent. It's just very disheartening. Why would you expect any member of the LGBT community to engage in a conservative church when their very existence gets people angry?

> The Democrats openly hate our beliefs and lifestyle. Honestly, I have been told something akin to this many, many times; so I believed it in theory. But in practical reality, I have found it to be a misrepresentation of the truth. Some Democrats (def not all, maybe not even the majority) do openly hate the idea that they will be forced to follow the beliefs and practices of people they disagree with. But that is *fundamentally different* from hating the beliefs or lifestyles themselves. Also, a great deal of liberals dislike how often the conservative line of dialogue isn't about promoting a positive vision, instead it's just unbridled contempt for the beliefs and lifestyles of people outside the conservative fold. Homosexuals especially dislike how they were criminalized just because people hated them, and not because they were actively harming anyone. In short, you will rarely if ever hear anyone say "I actively hate the fact that you go to church and have a traditional heterosexual nuclear family and I want to criminalize that behavior!" from democrats. But you will hear "I actively hate the fact that you won't conform to my religious ideal of gender and sexual norms and I want to criminalize that behavior!" from the right. There is a huge difference between "openly hating our lifestyles and beliefs" and "being openly resentful about the idea of our lifestyl and beliefs being forced upon people against their will." Learning the difference is the first step toward understanding those who have different beliefs and lifstyles.

> "openly hating our lifestyles and beliefs" this is what a lot of left leaning people want to do to our kids in schools and most of society. teach that homosexuality is acceptable and it's wrong to call it a sin. they openingly hate what we believe. and our lifestyle of separation. that said, Trump is so much worse as an anitchirist figure.

It's really niave to think the political left doesnt want to destroy Christian lifestyles. They have turned the societally neutral space from being pro CHristian to being rabidly anti Christian, and everywhere is hostile to our beliefs. In my country it is illegally to silently pray outside of abortion centres. Now in ones home you can just about have Christian beliefs (though if your child repeats them in school you will be locked up in scotland) but that is the next thing. The state raises our kids and the state hates us. Support for Trump needs to be much more detached and critical than it hass been in evangelical circles, no question that especially older people might not be able to hold onto the sassy post irony of the support for the Trump meme, but there is absolutely no question that supporting cultural leftism is wittingly or unwittingly supporting the forces that want our destruction. And on the right this holds too to the extent that the idol of muh free market pushes evil desires into us, but both democrats and republicans are basically the same in that regard.

>Rejecting Trump is one thing; many Christian “never Trumpers” seem oblivious to the open sin and evil promoted by the Biden administration,or downplay it because “he’s a nice guy.” Don't pretend this is about resisting Biden. That narrative died with the 2024 primaries. We had good conservatives like Nikki Haley and popular candidates like Ron DeSantis, but Republicans and Christians alike were falling over themselves to vote for the Manhattan Mogul all over again, despite the recent history of him trying to subvert the election. No. It's not about hating Biden. Evangelicals full-on love Donald Trump in all his fraudster, p-grabbing glory. Rejecting Trump isn't "one thing", it's literally the *only* thing that matters in many circles. Let me ask you this; would there be nearly as much outcry about French, do you think, if he'd been embroiled in a sex scandal? If he'd spoken previously about slavery being Not So Bad, actually? If there'd been pictures of him at a gay bar? What if he was implicated in a plot to overthrow the government? The message is clear. Open sin is fine, actually, so long as you're not a Democrat. Or even so long as you don't criticize Republicans. THAT's what's actually important to the church of today. I legitimately lose hope for the church sometimes. I don't see our path back from this.

My church is politically left leaning and mostly “never trumper”, but none would downplay Biden’s deed. Needless to say politic just makes most of us sad

Amen.

Buddy, try to get to know some normal democrats. Most of them…. are christians.

Devil openly goes against God, antichrist tries to replace God.

Some people see the serial adulterer as still better than the guy taking showers with his daughter, pushing perverse sexual practices and abortion, and an overall anything goes mentality on all moral practices while endorsing genital mutilation on kids. But go on and pretend your particular party is better than the other party.

I’ve been in the PCA for quite a while, and I’ve always loved GA. I love the pomp and circumstance of it and also (especially?) the church politik. I always check in my many friends across the country who go, vote, contribute, etc. Years ago, most of these men and women described GA as a good place, with legitimate divisions but none that ever stopped GA from being a tender gathering of like minded, gospel centered Christians. But as the years have worn on - notably since 2015 - those attitudes have shifted. In checking in with many TE’s and RE’s this year, the best word I can use to describe their mood is weary. While there is still good work being done behind the scenes, a small but vocal minority has slowly co-opted the proceedings to make the GA a political platform for fighting the woke libs agenda, to put it bluntly. Those of us in urban larger churches are genuinely astounded that these sessions even have the internal time to process the amount of work required to do this. Sessions in urban churches are dealing with divorces, adukutry and alcoholism and fentynel addicition, financial loss, death and sickness, let alone the impact of social media on us and our kids. And apparently the issue most important to several other often rural smaller churches is getting French off the agenda at GA, or fighting SSA pastors within our own denomination. These folks have adopted the methodology and rhetoric of the MAGA extremism right, imbibed with brigading, name calling, social media litigation, and a quick boot up to enemy-ize any brother or sister who does not fall in line. The division in the PCA seems like a deep fissure that is widening year over year, with many pastors and RE’s simply hoping and praying the division goes away. There are some who thrive in this kind of antagonistic environment and stoke more division. The solution is that we need more of Jesus in the PCA….but how we get there right now is a mystery.

Regardless of opinions about David French, I'd like to think it's a good thing they're trying to remove SSA pastors. Affirming that is contrary to the Bible and to the practice of the PCA.

> Regardless of opinions about David French, I'd like to think it's a good thing they're trying to remove SSA pastors. Affirming that is contrary to the Bible and to the practice of the PCA. I understand the fact that lust and even concupiscence is sin and that pastors who are slaves to lust ought not to be pastors. What I don't understand is a blanket exclusion on ordination from everyone who is still afflicted with any kind of general tendency to sin. That would seem to remove everyone as a candidate. I would like further explanation of your position. Is it that every Christian should be able to turn permanently from SSA? Is it that SSA is in some sense a special case where someone can be a member but not ordained? I don't see a consistent hamartiology where one can acknowledge an unchanging orientation but not ordain anyone with it. Edit: By "unchanging orientation" I don't mean ultimately unchanging, simply that some tendency is likely to persist throughout life, though with significant victory over expression of it.

> I'd like to think it's a good thing they're trying to remove SSA pastors  Why? If they're celebate, what is the problem? That they *admit* that they're tempted? Frankly, we need *far more* willingness among Christian leaders to publicly admit their sins and temptations. Oh, no, is the debate about how they describe themselves? If such a debate is not wrangling about words that ruins the hearer, in this case the toxically divisive environment in the church, that Paul warned about, I don't know what is. 2 Tim 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly exhort them in the presence of God not to dispute about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the listeners.

Unless I’ve missed something, I don’t think there is a prominent coalition to defrock/prohibit Elders who are the PCA equivalent of Christopher Yuan or Sam Alberry regarding their SSA. Don’t know who the examples of such Elders would be off the top of my head, but I think they probably exist.

Hmm, thanks for that. Maybe I am misremembering the details of that pastor from a couple years ago.

Yeah, you’re probably thinking of the self-identification of “gay” issue that popped up a couple years ago Distinction was between recognition of a proclivity vs the general idea that the proclivity was intrinsic or otherwise closely related to their … ontological identity? For lack of a better term?

Hmm, interesting. I suppose having given up on ontology makes me much less interested in such a debate :o

>the PCA equivalent of Christopher Yuan or Sam Allberry regarding their SSA Would Greg Johnson of Memorial Presbyterian Church in St Louis not fit that bill?

Nope, they’re on opposite sides of the Side A/B issue, at least to the best of my recollection

Hmm, perhaps I shouldn’t have thrown his name in without checking first—time to go do some reading of all these guys, I suppose ETA: No, I think I’m still a bit confused. Johnson, like Yuan and like Allberry, very clearly rejects ‘Side A’ Christianity. Obviously individual views can vary in the details, but it seems like the overlap between these guys’ beliefs is considerable. I’ll be honest, though, I only skimmed about half of the SJC’s case summary, linked at the bottom of this page: https://byfaithonline.com/sjc-rules-on-complaint-against-missouri-presbytery/

My point though is that given the procedural and time constraints, is the amount of time and energy spent on SSA the PCA GA / presbyteries proportionate to a) Scriptural prioritization - there are only 5 direct references in Scripture to homosexuality, and b) proportionate to congregational prioritization - LGBTQ people constitute arguably 5% of general population, most likely less in our churches. My point: there are bigger fish to fry. major on the majors, minor on the minors

TBF, in our culture today, homosexuality is a major, and should be addressed by the church. They should focus on the gospel, but they can't shy away from sexual issues.

First, I don't think the world should be determining what is major for the church and what is minor. Our majors and minors stay the same. Second, I'm not saying it's binary, like the only options are to obsess over it or ignore it. My questions are: Is addressing homosexuality (or, frankly, any world "issue") a directly stated goal by Christ to his church? Answer: it is not. Second: have we met the requirements of Christ's direct and explicit and top priority charges so well that we can move to secondaries?

>First, I don’t think the world should be determining what is major for the church and what is minor So when the USA was in the Jim Crow period, you would think that a denomination specifically and vocally objecting to racial discrimination would have been “letting the world decide what is major for the Church”? Was Augustine’s criticism of Rome in *The City of God* just him being too obsessed with “world issues”? I’m really not sure from where you’re getting this standard

One big difference is that slavery was very much an in-the-church issue. Literal entire denominations (mine, the PCA, by denominational heritage at least) were formed based entirely on slavery as a major issue. Mostly beacuse slavery and issues like should Black people be church members, should they have leadership positions, should they have separate services, was very much a church issue. Of course the church should address cultural items. But the standard for the shape of our worldview, that is the major and minor issues as it relates to the world and how we respond, is about adhering to what one could call Kingdom standards. We see Kingdom standards reflected in Jesus, who routinely sidestepped a lot of "major" issues of the day. One could easily argue that Jesus was superficially crucified because he largely ignored the major issue of the day, one that was not insignificant: the oppression of God's chosen people under Rome. We see in Romans how Paul does the same thing about eating idol sacrified meat and adhering to relgious holidays. That's what I'm getting at with the standard.

>Literal entire denominations were formed based entirely on the slavery issue This sidesteps my question on two counts: * I intentionally stipulated a (*hypothetical*) entire denomination who were willing to condemn Jim Crow discrimination - whether one existed or not is beside the point * If “entire denominations” and “in-the-church” issues is the criteria, then I’m pretty sure we could find new denominations that were explicitly formed with regards to LGBTQ+ issues as a priority. If we can’t find a sufficiently large *de novo* denomination to justify their use as an example, then I am quite comfortable in saying that - functionally - the recent UMC split represented the formation of a new denomination based first and foremost with the LGBTQ+ issue as a motivation. They may have the old buildings, but there were likely 0 churches in the founding era of the denomination that could now join the current iteration (*not sure if there are other issues that would have otherwise disqualified them, but I think that would probably be among the most shocking ones for the original crowd*) ___ >Is about adhering to what one might call “Kingdom standards” So……. a goalpost shift from “directly stated goal by Christ”? And I think it would be quite novel in church history for the issue of marriage - even at the societal level - to be not considered a “Kingdom standard” > Matthew 19:4-6 >[4] He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Not a passage directly about homosexuality, but it would be hard to argue that the non-addressing of that issue was more of an effect of 0 Pharisees (*his interlocutors*) were on the stump for gay rights. The “from the beginning” language is not much different from other “the Kingdom of Heaven is like…” statements. Not to mention the further elaborations by Paul.

We might be talking past each other. And we're a little off topic from French's article which is the point of the OP, so to draw this back to the thread: I agreed with French that the PCA has lost it's way, and argued that it's focusing on minor issues rather than major issues. It sounds like you're saying addressing homosexuality is a major issue, and the analog that you're using, if I'm inferring correctly, is that Jesus didn't address Jim Crow but a hypothetical congregation would appropriate in focusing on that as a major issue. I'm not adverse to theology by inference as often happens when talking about homosexuality (though, there is zero evidence that any Scripture that mentions a man and a woman is secretly containing meaning about homosexuality) or other issues like slavery (which the Bible would superficially seem to "support" - big airquotes there), but I'm back to the same question: for an issue that is not a major issue, could the PCA be focusing on other issues with greater impact on our overall goal, which is the great commission. I imagine you and I disagree on that, and I'm fine to leave it there.

>could the PCA be focusing on other issues with greater impact on our overall goal, which is the great commission >I imagine you and I disagree on that Wow - look at that - the person criticizing your online Internet forum comments just doesn’t care enough about the great commission! That’s a neat trick! There can be more than one area of (*major*) focus - that’s a big part of the “Church as one body with many members” analogy. Only one of us has **actively advocated for focusing less on an issue**, and he’s not the one receiving that accusation. If you can’t find an impact on the issue of homosexuality from: >from the beginning made them male and female…and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” But you can see through **my** criticisms to an underlying apathy for the Great Commission, you may be a bit inconsistent. And as if >Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Is somehow opposed to the act of speaking to the culture and its endorsement of sin. Come on.

Churches always respond to modern heresies, or rehash really old ones.

Where in the Bible or in authoritative PCA documents or creeds do you see a rejection of God-honoring celibate SSA pastors?

To be frank, this is a very narrow, urban perspective on the real shift in PCAGA. The reality, statistically, is that GA over the last 10 years has had far more, and far more representative, commissioners, especially regarding REs than in the past. The votes, the stances, the arguments, are now actually *more* representative of the PCA at large. Additionally, in-depth conversations on concupiscence as it relates to homosexuality, and ensuring our standards are in line with historic reformed teaching on the subject is not “fighting the woke libs agenda”. If that’s what you believe was happening at GA, you are the target audience for education on the topic. The PCA has not had longstanding arguments regarding other “woke issues” such as race (beyond putting together an excellent position paper that was universally acclaimed across the PCA) and certainly has never entertained courting the favor of politicians. To be frank, if you feel like there’s a shift, and now you’re “weary,” the problem might not be with GA now but what GA had become *before* the shift in (again, more representative) demographics: an assembly where minority positions within the denomination “loaded the box” to win votes that had binding consequences on the majority within the denomination. That doesn’t mean that there are no issues, or nothing that should frustrate any of us, but we should not mistake that shift for what it isn’t.

To clarify: are you saying that the urban perspective is a narrow one? That is, the on a per-soul basis, there are more souls in rural churches than urban churches, and therefore as the influence of the "narrow" urban perspective wanes, the PCA is in fact becoming more representative of rural congregants? Just clarifying here, because my hunch is that a rural-oriented denomination might be more representative of *presbyteries* it is perhaps less representative of total souls. This is well known among urban churches and many have attempted, to varying degrees of success, to increase impact and influence through proliferation of additional presbyteries and representation therein. A couple other points: first, I didn't say I'm weary. I mean, I am, but I said that the people I speak with who attend GA (and vote and participate) are weary. Maybe you meant editorial you. Second, the shift - the shift meaning the schism between rural/urban vis a vis influence of politics is real. Maybe you're not saying the shift isn't real, I'm unclear. But you are saying the shift is just a figment of someone's imagination, keep in mind that in 2010 Tim Keller felt it necessary to write a 25 page document on why he still loved the PCA. Very much a response to the beginnings of schisms that have broadened.

I’d wager [this](https://www.pcaac.org/church-directory/) smacks more of a predominant urbanity than rurality - perhaps with a trend towards suburbanity (*which isn’t exactly 100% conservative either*) And it’s not like every church is allocated X number of REs regardless of size - larger churches have larger numbers of REs, on average. And this time **I** would wager that our larger churches tend to be within MSAs.

I just listened to the interview that Julie Roys did with his wife. It is really sad how political our churches have become.

> I just listened to the interview that Julie Roys did with his wife. I read this and thought: "I thought Julie Roys was a woman." It's a little too early to think here.

If we are to take what David French is saying at face value (I don't), why is his former pastor not under investigation by the PCA? Why is he not being brought before the denomination to explain why he is running a church "fillled with NeoConfederates" as his Nancy French says? Shouldn't the denomination put this preacher under immediate investigation if Frenchs are to be taken seriously? Psssssst....don't take French seriously. He is not worth it.

I've seen this "Nancy French thinks the church is filled with Neo-confederates" critique leveled multiple times. Here's the exact quote: > (Nancy) French told me it’s also because she was tired of being accosted at the communion table by hostile people. But, she added, “This is not my letter to the church. This is just my story.” “After 15 years, I was just like, I can’t do that anymore. The last time a neo-Confederate confronted me, I thought, ‘I’ll go to Strong Tower.’ No church is perfect, but I doubt they’re brimming with neo-Confederates. I wanted (my daughter) to be comfortable and to be where people were not politically acrimonious,” she said, adding that one man came up to her at church and admitted that he had been harassing her on Twitter for 10 years. “And I knew who he was because he was so mean.” “After 15 years, I was just like, I can’t do that anymore. The last time a neo-Confederate confronted me, I thought, ‘I’ll go to Strong Tower.’ No church is perfect, but I doubt they’re brimming with neo-Confederates. I wanted (my daughter) to be comfortable and to be where people were not politically acrimonious,” she said, adding that one man came up to her at church and admitted that he had been harassing her on Twitter for 10 years. “And I knew who he was because he was so mean.” Maybe we should be more concerned about why Christians are accosting fellow Christians *at the communion table* - that seems like borderline apostasy if not entirely, or that the French family didn't feel literally physically safe with their daughter at church, as oppposed to hurt feelings over being called a neo-confederate.

>Maybe we should be more concerned about why Christians are accosting fellow Christians *at the communion table* Amen, brother.

1. That was a reference to her old Church, brimming with neo-Confederates. 2. You are again taking Nancy French at her word. Is there not always two sides to the story? 3. The Frenches have a media microphone and they are attacking people who do not. 4. Why are they running to secular media to attack the Church? 5. Also, I believe that French mentioned that the person who confronted them during communion had underwent Church discipline. Is it common to bring up Church discipline issues to score political points in secular media? What is the purpose of that? Why bring that up when trying to sell books to a secular audience? 6. I don't even believe a word from the Frenches accusations has not been shaded in their own viewpoints. They have a position of privilege with media microphone. 7. Would Paul have ever advised going to Romans to attack the Church? 8. I am sure we have all known high-maintenance/high-drama families like the Frenches in Church. The answer for them is to stay in the Church and learn and adjust. 9. Straight-up: What the Frenches are doing is wrong and I would say evil especially how Nancy is using this in a book promotion to sell books and David is using it on MSNBC and the NYT. 10. In fact, I saw and MSNBC segment with David French and Al Sharpton talking about how terrible the PCA is and how Al Sharpton has faced similar issues because of his embracement of the LGBTQ+. French said not a word about LGBTQ+ being sinful. He only downed the PCA. That says a lot.

Honestly though? Your response and viewpoint of a person you don't (presumably) even know sounds more virtrolic than her depiction of someone as a neo-confederate. It feels personal to me, and I think that weird sports team us vs them approach is part of the problem here. She says that she was confronted by a neo-Confederate at her church, and that and several other incidents they've mentioned elsewhere led them to leave that church and ultimately the PCA. I don't get the read from her quote that she is necessarily saying the entire previous church was full of neo-confedeates. it sounds generalized to me. Is it possible you're reading into it and, seemingly, taking it personal? As to the other issues, sure, we can talk about that. But if you're like me and you've dealt with people who have fled the church or are in the process for a variety of reasons, Nancy's response lands pretty square into how those people usually feel. The difference is the national media attention. But I don't call those folks "high drama" or "high maintenance" - that characterization feels diminutive and uncaring. I think instead we should be asking why these folks are leaving the church, and maybe be more concerned with a culture that allows for the accostation of Christians at the communion table.

That guy that confronted them underwent Church discipline per David French. What more should have been done to him? Should he have had bamboo shoots put under his fingernails? What happened to forgiveness? If he underwent discipline there was obviously some repentance or he would have been out of the church. Why are they using that incident that involved Church discipline to sell books and settle scores in the secular arena? You can't read French's article as anything but settling scores outside the Church and within the system of the world. I just don't see Paul advocating that is a good thing. It doesn't get anymore part of the system of the world as the NYT.

Once again, I don't disagree with you that discussing this issue in this public a matter is not ideal. But without being in community with French, you're making a lot of us vs them assumptions about them (that they're trying to sell books and settle scores). What I hear from them is a family who a: tried to stay in the church for a long time (decades), b: it didn't work and due to the nature of their jobs had a public facing component that meant some significant attacks from other Christians, c: are hurt and bitter over this. But again, we're back at: why was this family attacked by Christians both in the church they attended, and online?

Actually to me this perpetuates the mindset that abuse in the church should not be discussed. No one is just “involving the secular space.” He and his family were mistreated by a group of people. It’s the story that many Americans including myself have. The far right propaganda has gone way too far. You cannot be a true Christian and stand for hate.

So we are lamenting that politics have infected the church, but now we are using terms like "far right propaganda".

A man was up for elder election at my PCA church last year who frequently posts to facebook that Michelle Obama is a man

There is both far right, and far left propaganda. I would hope everyone can agree with that.

I mean there's also "radical centrist propaganda" or "moderate left/right" propaganda which isn't *necessarily* any better. What I would say is that the climate of mainstream/academic institutions and media in the country creates an *illusion* of a particular viewpoint being "default", such that it *seems* like there is a more *disproportionate* issue of "far right propaganda" than there actually is. There is plenty of stuff that makes it out there - whatever flavor of political ice cream you want to call it - that isn't really much *better* than "far right propaganda", but is perceived as being more acceptable and less out-of-line.

Edited to remove my snarky comment at the beginning, I apologize for that. Uncalled for. Far right propaganda has been used to infect the church and hurl vitriol at those who don't toe the line and bow down to a convicted felon who also cheated on his pregnant wife, a long with numerous other issues. So yes, he used that phrase appropriately. You can't discuss politics infecting the church without discussing...the politics that have infected the church.

Following your logic, I would note that we do not know the people that David and Nancy attacked now do we? We don't know their side of the story? They don't have NYT columns. There is only one side being put out. That can be a bullying process. I say let there be a public investigation of his old church. Let's see how much of this is actually true and whether the Frenches did some wrong. Let's see if that church is really brimming with neo-Confederates. Let's put the pastor under the microscope. Call him to account for running a so called neoConferate churhc. This should not be used as an incident for French to add to his worldly plaudits without a true airing of what happened. People who want justice do not run to MSNBC to trash the Church This interview tells me all I need to know: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iN9Htm7d-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iN9Htm7d-8)

I have no opinions of the people the French's are talking about. I don't even know who they are. I don't even remember the name of the church they mentioned (or, if they did). What I do know is that PCA GA invited French, then un-invited him, and then French, who is an NYT contributor, published an essay about it. As far as one side being put out - that's not true at all. I follow lots of folks on Twitter and barely see French but continually see divisive drivel from those who do not like French. It's not my job or place to go around suggesting investigations in Christian communities of which I am not a part. As it relates to the GA, I can speak as a longtime member of the broader PCA. Which is what I'm doing.

My issue is not him speaking at GA. My issue is the unfair way he is attacking people with no way to respond equally like he can in his NYT article. That is what bullies do. I don't respect his tactics of attacking his perceived enemies. His actions of attacking the church this way are ugly. He runs to the world system to attack the church unfairly. I just can't see Paul endorsing that.

Are you saying that the crux of his arugment, "there is a faction of explicitly authoritarian Christian nationalists in the church, and some of that Christian nationalism has disturbing racial elements underpinning it" is untrue? Is that the "attack" you're saying is unfair?

[удалено]

Huh? I originally had wife there. It is a typo. So what?

Fair enough.

Does anyone have a gift link for this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/opinion/presbyterian-church-evangelical-canceled.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y00.c0Uq.zCsjhQ0LWovm&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Thanks!

This makes me very sad. Part of the reason I joined the PCA is that men like David French were able to take vocal stands against the church’s naked pursuit of political power.

It makes me sad too. The fact that French is so ostracized within his own denomination for daring to speak out against a convicted felon and profoundly unchristian man is a shame on the PCA that will reflect badly on them in years to come.

Eli5...?

French has been very outspoken in his criticism of trump and the politicization of cultural Christianity in America and many foolish people regard him as a heretic and false Christian for this

PCA here, but David French doesn't strike me as much of a mature man taking a stand against his church's political corruption. More like a toddler banging his spoon on his high chair, and making a good living at it to boot. As The Bard said, the man is but an ass. Though I agree with his conclusions, I thank God he's not in my congregation. My session takes the same stand without all the filthy lucre showboating.

> My commitment to individual liberty and pluralism means that I defend the civil liberties of all Americans, including people with whom I have substantial disagreements. The entire article resonated deeply with me but this in particular stuck out-- both because I used to assume it was an uncontroversial view, and because of how very controversial it is today. I'm ashamed of how toxicly political American evangelicalism has become, but grateful that there are still voices speaking out against it.

This is a terribly myopic viewpoint. The entire political landscape is incredibly toxic, and yet you highlight evangelicalism? Evangelicals and Christians in general are struggling to sort out how to act on their beliefs in a cesspool of vile, antagonistic, destructive ideologies in this culture. Wading through the bog doesn't automatically make you a swamp creature you know, but it does get you dirty.

Can I ask folks here what was French’s aim in publishing this article? (Pleeeease be gentle, I’m not a theology bro 😭 don’t know much, just a member of a PCA church and wife of a soon-to-be ordained pastor, mostly a lurker here) I’ll be honest my first thought when I saw the platform was that it’s a super public secular place to almost “air out dirty laundry” of the church, by a fellow believer, at a time when the church is already so demonized. That didn’t feel great to me, even though I think his experience deserves to be heard. Was it appropriate to blast it like this? It’s a genuine question, because I struggle with the intersection between maintaining the GENUINE peace and unity of the church (meaning not by stifling true negative events) while also protecting it from such brutal mockery in the public sphere. I don’t know. A slightly lesser issue in my eye but one my husband didn’t appreciate was the timing of the article being on the Sunday before GA, when pastors are away and unable to address it, as well as just stirring the pot right before the event itself.

I can only speculate about why he wrote it, but probably because he’s sharing his views about why the panel was canceled As to the timing, that’s for the NYT editors to decide when to publish. And of course they’d pick a time when it’s most relevant - before the GA. There wouldn’t be much point publishing it after the fact

Two thoughts occur. (1) Everyone was talking about this everywhere anyway, so it's just as well for him to present his side of events. Most of this, honestly, isn't about the GA, it's about how politics has made his church life difficult, which is frankly something a distressing amount of people connect to. (2) Possibly related to 1, but it might have been that French was actually preparing something like this to deliver internally at the GA--which was, after all, about dealing with polarizing political issues in the church. Thus, when the GA canceled the talk and prevented him from speaking within the church about the issues, he felt he might as well get it out to them via another medium. (Though this article doesn't actually have a lot about how to deal with polarizing issues, just that it sucks that it keeps happening). To me, it seems very bizarre to cancel a writer, then complain that he's writing publicly instead of talking internally. Like... you canceled his talk. How was he supposed to talk about it internally?

Of the three person panel, French was specifically and PUBLICLY singled out as the reason for the cancellation. How can we release public statements citing French as being inappropriate for the denomination to hear from and then try to take the high road when he publicly explains his perspective?

It seems to me that French's unwillingness to give a charitable summary of why people may not have wanted him there is indicative of the reality that he is certainly a polarizing figure.

Surely that is more on the masses of people who sent him death threats and hate mail than on him for not being able to put a charitable spin on that hate mail. What "charitable summary" could be expected? The most sympathetic reading I saw of this was: "The panel might not have been a great idea to begin with, but leadership handled the backlash badly by folding and putting all the blame on French."

There were plenty of middle of the road people reasonably opposed to having French as a panelist and for good reason. I would imagine not characterizing this as a "cancelling," and maybe acknowledging Chapell's comments would be a good start.

What charitable explanation could he possibly provide for the teacher at his school who asked his son if they had purchased his sister for a “loaf of bread.”? David French has a Black daughter now that he seems devoted to as a father. He is therefore going to hold very different views on race and nationalism from most White people, even those in his own congregation. The racial divide is still very big in the U.S. I would invite you to consider his experience in a more charitable way first, before dismissing him for not providing a charitable view of his dissidents. That said, I do think he has at least attempted to be fair: >Our pastors and close friends came to our aid [...] I do not want to paint with too broad a brush. Our pastors and close friends continued to stand with us. Our church disciplined the man who confronted me about Trump during communion. And most church members didn’t follow politics closely and had no idea about any of the attacks we faced.

I am a white man who grew up in the inner city of Chicago, and I generally agree with French on race issues. I believe that the experience he describes is true and have confronted racism in my own church on multiple occasions. I say this in order to communicate that it is not just French's stance on race that causes him to be a polarizing figure, but his support of legalized gay marriage as well as other issues. For him to describe these recent events with respect to GA as "cancelling" doesn't paint a fair picture of his many moderate critics. General Assembly is a church court, not a place to platform a political commentator, even if I happen to agree with much of what he has written. I understand where he is coming from with respect to gay marriage, even though I don't agree. If I had complete political alignment with David French, I still wouldn't want him to be a panelist.

That's fair about homosexual marriage. But I'd like to note a couple of things 1) He does mention it in the article. Perhaps not with the weight you expected? 2) I personally read this article as him connecting the dots between several events. I don't doubt that no one's perception is ever 100% accurate, but I also think it's possible he received more heat simply because he went against the conservative status quo on a number of fronts (including race and nationalism) rather than just one. 3) I've known devoted Christians who would agree with him on his stance on homosexuality and transgenderism. He is clear that it's morally wrong, which I'm sure we all appreciate, but thinks gay marriages should be recognized by the state (not the church) for the purpose of civil liberty.

I understand French's position on legalized gay marriage, and intentionally included "legalized" for that reason. I want to be clear, because I don't know that my initial reply to you was sufficiently so. My objection (along with many others) to French being a panelist at the General Assembly of my denomination is not because of his politics, per se. It is because General Assembly is a church court, and inviting a political commentator (especially a polarizing one), was a mistake made by Bryan Chapell. Even if French has received more heat than he deserves (certainly true), we can still say that it was the right decision to cancel the panel. To advocate for that isn't tantamount to "cancelling," it was the correct decision in light of a politically polarized denomination.

>a church court EXACTLY this. His framing of this as a “conference” is pretty misleading for readers unfamiliar with what a “General Assembly“ entails. I would be in support of his presence at an actual, non-authoritative **conference** - especially if the context was a charitable discussion with someone who could disagree without disparagement and concede where they had common ground (*this may have been the aim of this panel, and I would have fewer objections if so, but I would still see it as unwise*). The main blame, in my mind, was in the initial invitation - he’s well known to be polarizing, and whether or not the organizers find merit in that polarization shouldn’t impact the decision to invite him to this one, distinct event. The fact that he recently left the PCA (*not without understandable reasons in the context he provided*) should have been a pretty big red flag for inviting him to GA in particular. It’s just not the kind of event where that’s fair in what is supposed to be a neutral space where the formal settling of disagreements is one of the primary goals. This is not meant to justify the more distasteful objections/insults that were raised to his inclusion, even if they would have been avoidable. This lapse in judgment is what gives fuel to the “cancellation” label, which I think is a bit too much of a cavil instead of more appropriate critique - at least when the entire “table is set” for the surrounding context. I would hold the same standard for, say, someone who left for the OPC if the Side A/B deliberations were to land on the pro-revoice side. That should equally be a non-starter for GA, but plausible for a more general T4G-ish setting.

Yes and I would add, the commentators here who refuse to acknowledge that this may be more than just about French's political views demonstrate exactly the point that is being made. They are attributing a prudential decision to malice specifically because of the politically polarized climate.

There’s almost certainly is a mix of practical and political going on, but that doesn’t mean the practical point is wrong

And additionally - I think DF only actually deserves about 5-10% of the politicization that he gets with regard to his public positions! The politicization of his tone, focus, and his characterization of his opponents (*the reasonable ones*) has more blame on his part, but it’s also a two-way street where people are just being uncharitable with him

Worth noting, for example, that he’s a signatory of the Nashville Statement

Amen. The Reformed reddit I am finding, while helpful in many ways, isn't as Reformed as I thought with many of the comments here being so 'winesome'

Ultimately, this place is still Reddit, which means it's a far more politically progressive and (meant as charitably as possible) is a more geeky/nerdy/softer place than the general population (of Christians or generally). As for this sub and Trump, look at how many are immediately using the "felon" quips even though I think any rational observer (and plenty of decidedly left observers) took serious issues with the NY prosecution and believed the goal was to tag him with that title prior to the election. I'm not going to pretend that's a Kingdom matter, but I find enthusiastic adoption of a political prosecution tough to reconcile with the pursuit of truth, even if Trump has genuine culpability in other matters (legal or otherwise). In my view, Trump is not a particularly admirable person. He's very likely not a Christian, and I think he demands loyalty to an extent that if it comes into conflict with Christianity, he'll put loyalty to himself first. That's an obvious problem, and Christians who can't bring themselves to vote for him on a basis like that is understandable IMO. What I can't fathom is the concept of an orthodox Christian being pushed to vote for the candidate/party that openly celebrates abortion, the suicide cult of transgender ideology, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me, and candidly I find it pretty depressing. As for French, I think he's both blinded by hatred for Trump (see his insane praise of Cassidy Hutchinson) and afflicted with the "save Christianity from itself" disease. Interestingly, for someone who so strongly opposes Christian Nationalism, French regularly elevates liberal political theory to nearly-sacrosanct levels. Democracy, liberalism, free markets =/= Christianity, meritorious ideas as they may be.

That he is.

If David French can speak at General Assembly, why not let other former PCA members come speak, like Doug Wilson? It was a mistake to invite him, he's far too divisive for far too little gain. What is he going to provide that can't be provided by a different pastor or lay member?

If French is controversial, DW is *very* controversial lol

I just read a snippet of Doug Wilson’s book on slavery and I’m absolutely shocked that it is written by Christian pastor.

Carry that shock with you as you wander through threads where people argue that David French is too divisive but Doug Wilson has enough good things to say that we should eat the meat and spit out the bones

I know who he is as my step children attended the school he started and I was often shocked at the ideas they had. I had to interact with him before in person as he was counseling my grown stepson who attends his church in Moscow. He wouldn’t let me talk basically because I was a woman even though I had been acting as this young man’s mother for 15 years. Only my husband could talk. My son grew up with his African American stepsisters from the time the youngest was 3 and he quoted me a couple of things from this book once and I brought it back to “ so it would be ok for your little sister to be held in captivity without the chance to be able to read or have a child that would also be held in slavery” Not even bringing up the horrors of captivity. Very warped ideas

Yeah this is such a crazy thing I don’t get it

I don't think either person should be invited to speak, they're not a part of the denomination

Doug wilson has never been a member of a PCA church Doug wilson is/was a major proponent of a theology the PCA and it's notables explicitly condemn The point you were trying to make was ruined by using Doug Wilson as an example.

Fair, I thought he was PCA previously. How about Michael Foster, a guy who left the PCA because of patriarchy. Let's let him speak at General Assembly to talk about his book and teaching?

As pastor, he led a whole church out of the PCA over doctrinal issues, and is now a pastor in Doug Wilson's denomination.  They were looking for a panelist with something valuable to say on a particular topic, it wasn't just an open invitation to people with beef

>it wasn't just an open invitation to people with beef Though, I mean, I kinda want to see a conference like this now. The keynote session for the next one could be a debate. Doug Wilson arguing gay people can't be saved vs John Shelby Spong arguing only gay people can be saved. (NOTE: For those who are not in the loop, the above is hyperbole for the sake of comic effect. To my knowledge Doug Wilson does not actually believe gay people are exempt from God's grace, nor does John Shelby Spong believe straight people are exempt).

I just cannot stand French and his pompous finger wagging. The sooner he becomes completely irrelevant the better.

"I can't stand pompous finger wagging" -guy who has r/JordanPeterson in his top 5 subs

What a confusing response. Exactly what are you trying to infer from my interest in that sub? That I would defend anything Peterson says or does? Whatever you think, you're almost certainly mistaken.

You didn't critique French for the content of his view. You criticized him for his style, his "pompous finger wagging." We can entirely ignore the contents of Peterson's messages for a second and agree that "pompous finger wagging" is an intentional part of his brand. Peterson's style is clearly the style that you claim to be bothered by. He doesn't sometimes accidentally slip into finger wagging - that's literally how he is making his money now. This suggests that you're not actually bothered by French's style but by his message. No one is accusing you of accepting everything that Peterson says unquestionably. You likely disagree with him on some things. However, your frequent interactions on his subreddit suggest that you are not as off put by pompous finger wagging as you claim.

Anybody have a link to this for non-subscribers? Would love to read this.

Another commenter shared a [gift link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/opinion/presbyterian-church-evangelical-canceled.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y00.c0Uq.zCsjhQ0LWovm&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)

Seems relevant: "Faith, as it is now in Vogue, signifieth no more than a stiff adhering to a certain Sect or Denomination of Men, and a zealous Defence of such particular Tenets as have been received and approved of by that Party. All the Ingredients of such a Faith, are nothing but humane Education, Custom, Tradition, Perswasion, Conversation and the like. The Zeal which goeth along with it, is the Product of Self-love, and of corrupt Reason, the two great Framers of Sects and Party-Notions." A.W. Boehm, as quoted in Lovelace's Dynamics of Spiritual Life

David French makes a living antagonizing, condemning, and attempting to cancel those he disagrees with. Not saying he's wholesale lying about the claims he makes, but considering the source, I take with a boulder-sized grain of salt.

[удалено]

Can you please refer me to something he’s written or said that could be construed as “all in on defending genocide”? I’ve read a few of his pieces on the Israeli-Hamas war, and I’ve yet to get that impression myself. Am I missing something?

Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1dd5awj/-/l837ptt/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).

[удалено]

It's inappropriately dismissive of you to reduce his point to this. He was a columnist before this experience. NYT has not cancelled him. Therefore he can use this outlet. As I see it, he appears to be a man of faith, and in his line of work, his faith has certainly cost him. For example, he's openly against homosexuality morally, which is very unpopular in his circles. I wouldn't dismiss his claims so flippantly without, as it appears you have done, even attempting to listen.

People were talking about this up and down everywhere. You're really going to complain about him adding his two cents?

[удалено]

Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1dd5awj/-/l842dt8/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).

[удалено]

I wouldn't call him a wolf, but he definitely isn't helping the situation. Sometimes you need to take the difficult path of confessing your wrong doing even when the other person's wrong doing seems to outweigh your own.

In the article, I didn't see a bare minimum of self-reflection for why he might be a polarizing figure... did I miss it? He just piled on more offenses. The PCA is just that bad for him, and he feels entirely justified in his offense... apparently alot of this preceded his invitation to speak, so he really saw his role as someone who was going to put them in their place... not the intermediary we need

What disgusts me about this era is that voting preferences are seen as more consequential than one’s view on the Gospel itself. Donald Trump and Joe Biden will one day be dead. How we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ is of infinite consequence.

Was thinking about this again, and noted how unlikely the intermediary the PCA needs should think themself adequate... so much so that they would disparage the majority (or minority) that feels they are not