Author: Chris Hohnholz (Page 9 of 38)

It would be kind to refer to David French (senior editor at The Dispatch and writer at The Atlantic) as an enigma to fellow Christians and political conservatives. In truth, it may be more accurate to describe him as a pretender to the throne. Mr. French writes as someone who espouses both Christian and politically conservative views but his routine attacks against both leave one wondering where he sits. Especially in light of two articles, he posted just this week.

In an article for The Atlantic, French espoused a positive view of the Senate vote for the “Respect for Marriage Act” in which he argued that it was a good thing that the Government is seeking to codify gay marriage into federal law. Two days later, French authored an article at The Dispatch entitled “Why I Changed My Mind About Law and Marriage, Again.” Like The Atlantic article, French makes a positive argument for the codification of gay marriage while trying to balance the concerns for religious liberty. I believe it is safe to say that French genuinely believes he is well-meaning in these articles but fails terribly to recognize the foundational issue at play, the issue of worldviews.

David French’s articles both rely on the need for a neutral worldview to act as an intermediary between two parties, the party of religious liberty and the party of gay marriage. French’s argumentation reveals that he believes such intermediation is possible and that both parties can receive their intended goals without infringing upon the other. The problem is that there is no such neutral worldview. There is no middle ground upon which the Constitution and the laws of America exist where both parties function equally. The myth of neutrality is exactly that, a myth.

French argues that LGBT persons should have the exact same rights as all other persons. They should be able to enjoy those rights without having them trampled upon by Christians and political conservatives. Likewise, LGBT persons should be limited from attacking religious liberty and forcing Christians to affirm or celebrate a civil union they see as sinful under the teachings of Scripture. And French believes that current legal protections are robust enough to allow for such coexistence to happen.

In his Dispatch article, David French points out that the current “Respect for Marriage” bill has language that protects religious organizations from having their credentials or tax-exempt status pulled for opposing gay marriage. He argues that this is a step in the right direction as it seeks to eliminate the language of the “Equality Act” which had virtually no religious protections in place. He likewise admits the marriage bill does nothing to protect private citizens and Christian-owned businesses from legal attacks for standing upon their religious beliefs. However, he argues that this is not a terrible thing as numerous Court cases have been won by private citizens and business owners who have undergone such attacks. One wonders if those business owners who have endured numerous lawsuits, government fines, threats against their business licenses, protests, slander, threats against their lives, and years of litigation feel those protections are as robust as French claims.

At the center of these arguments are the worldviews which drive them. French admits that those who promulgate LGBT rights and gay marriage want to eradicate the religious freedoms that ought to protect Christians and churches. By his own statement, the so-called Equality Act aims at those religious protections to ensure churches would not be free from reprisal for standing in opposition to gay marriage. Why is this? Because the worldview that drives the LGBT agenda stands in direct opposition to a free and open society.

Much like Marxism of the past, this ideology identifies an “oppressed” group, the LGBT, and the oppressor group, Christians and the church. In the LGBT worldview, the only possible way to have true equity and equality is to remove the Christian church from its “privileged” place in society and to elevate the LGBT to a higher status. In other words, Christians must be oppressed and the LGBT must be liberated. This is not a worldview of freedom but one of enslavement.

Those who argue for the elevation of the LGBT worldview will never be satisfied to have a “well-balanced” neutral system where the government grants them the rights they demand while simultaneously protecting the very people they see as their oppressors. We have seen this in the language of Critical Theory. Their worldview argues any system that does not turn oppressors into the oppressed is systemically broken in the favor of the oppressors. Therefore, nothing but the complete replacement of the existing system will bring about equality.

French completely punts on this matter. He demonstrates no willingness to interact with or acknowledge the clear and present danger such a worldview presents to a free society. He simply wants his readers to believe that we can find some kind of zen balance between the two where everyone can be happy.

One must also address the institution of marriage itself. French would argue that, while marriage is a religious institution, the government has a duty toward civil marriages. In other words, the government has the authority to decide outside the religious realm what is a marriage and upon whom it can confer this institution. Yet, this too plays into the hands of the LGBT worldview. If indeed marriage is by nature a religious institution, then the government is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering with the Church’s role in it. Yet, French hides behind the “Establishment Clause,” the so-called separation of Church and State, to say that the government cannot enforce a religious view of marriage upon the institution. Yet, this is a capitulation to the new worldview because French ought to recognize that should then remove the government from marriage altogether.

In turn, the worldview upon which our system of government was originally based, the Judeo-Christian worldview, recognizes that rights are not something granted by the government but come from a moral source outside of ourselves. Note that I referred to the Judeo-Christian worldview and did not call it the Christian worldview. It is well understood that not all of our founding fathers were Christians. Many were deists and some were perhaps agnostic or atheistic. Yet, they came together in agreement to state that rights did not sit with the king to be doled out or retracted at his will. Rather, they were self-existent, outside of us, coming from a source of moral authority outside of humanity. They were in fact given to us by our Creator. Therefore, the role of government was to protect those rights and allow for the self-governing of the citizens of the nation.

The fact that our rights were endowed to us by our Creator means we are beholden to that Creator. Therefore, it makes sense that the founders sought to protect the rights of free speech and religion against government infringement. Those that opposed the king in England by not adhering to the dictatorial rule of the Church of England found themselves often persecuted for being held captive to their conscience by the Word of God. In other words, appealing to the Creator over the king, who was head of the church, could result in dire consequences. The Constitution recognized, via the Judeo-Christian worldview, that citizens had an obligation to honor God above all else according to the dictates of their conscience. Therefore, the government had no right to intervene and prevent the exercise of that right.

This worldview emphasized the freedom of the God-informed conscience over and above the whims of government and, thus, bound government to the people, not the other way around. Freedom was found in protecting rights given by God not by ushering in a foreign worldview that seeks to supplant and destroy the existing system.

What French will refuse to admit is that he wants have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the respect and admiration of Christians who desire religious freedom. At the same time, he wants those who adhere to the LGBT worldview to believe he is on their side. In the end, what French does is punch down the religious crowd by claiming their concerns are overblown while affirming the worldview of the LGBT community which seeks to oppress and silence their detractors. Until French and others recognize that the battle is here and that there is no neutral ground, they’ll never recognize how much of a threat they are to the religious community.

Christians need to decide where they are going to stand on the issue of our day. It is now clear that the worldview upon which our nation was once founded barely exists. Those that hold to it continue to lose ground. And those warring against it find willing collaborators, such as David French, to help them institute a new order. So, we must ask ourselves what we will do.

For the Christian, my suggestion has been and will continue to be the following: we must first and foremost bow the knee to Christ, forsaking all worldly attempts to draw us into compromise. That which God has called sin is and always will be sin. While French would claim that those committing such sinful unions are engaged in marriages and have built actual families, God gives us no ground to concede his claims. We must stand firmly and without apology on the truth. And we must preach this truth, calling out sin and calling the world to repentance in Jesus Christ alone. For, even if we were to win back the culture to a Judeo-Christian worldview, sin would still abound and souls would still be bound for Hell. We stand firm, preach the gospel, and pray for lost souls.

Secondly, we vote and argue based on our God-informed consciences and we do not compromise. Not even a little bit. French and company want to be the voice of the collective Christian conscience. They want to argue a little compromise is fine if it allows us an inroad with the culture. Better to look good in the eyes of the world than to vote for the wrong people or policies and lose our influence. If we are to honor God, then we do so in all areas of our lives. This includes our politics. It will not be long before you or I will find ourselves the lone man or woman standing on the battlefield holding to Christian principles. But, even then, we will not, we cannot, forsake the truth. Honor God, never compromise, and promote that which is godly and true, always.