Is church attendance a pact with the devil?

It's revealing to compare these two positions by David French: On the one hand, voting for Trump in the 2016 general election was a betrayal of Christian faith. Caving into worldly fear. Diametrically opposed to 2 Tim 1:7. 

Instead, the evangelical church is called to be a source of light in a darkening world. It is not given the luxury of fear-based decisionmaking. Indeed, of all the groups in American life who believe they have the least to fear from American politics, Christians should top the list. The faithful should reject fear.

This is made plain to young Christians from the early days of Sunday school. There, many millions of young believers are taught the biblical verse: “For God gave us not a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control.”

But in 2016, something snapped. I saw Christian men and women whom I’ve known and respected for years respond with raw fear at the very idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency. 

https://time.com/5615617/why-evangelicals-support-trump/

On the other hand, when Christians appeal to the same verse to justify church attendance during the pandemic, that's succumbing to the diabolical temptation, when Satan tried to strike a bargain with Jesus in the wilderness: 

Even within those churches that have chosen to comply with public health warnings and temporarily cancel services, there are rumblings of dissent and discontent. You see it all over social media. And whether sophisticated or simple, these impulses toward defiance are virtually all grounded in a similar question: Why should Christians surrender to fear? People of faith should reject the guidance of public officials. Our gatherings are different. After all, isn’t it true that “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control”? 

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matthew 4:5-7).

The first set of verses represents the second of the three great temptations of Jesus as outlined in the book of Matthew. Satan demanded that Christ perform an ostentatious display of power and faith—that he throw himself from a great height to demonstrate his invulnerability. Yet Christ refused, declaring that such a ridiculous and ostentatious act would put God to the test.

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/coronavirus-courage-and-the-second

Now, I agree with French that going to church is a not a talisman that will safeguard parishioners from contacting the virus. Some of them might even contract it by going to church. Mind you, there are so many ways to contract the virus that I think the vector of transmission is often untraceable. But it's a malicious caricature to attribute that motive to every churchgoer or would-be churchgoer during the pandemic. 

What's striking, though, is French's priorities. Voting for Trump was (and still is, by his lights) a cowardly, faithless action. But keeping church services available during the pandemic is tantamount to making a pact with the devil. French's theological priorities and elastic use of Scripture are so inverted that it's hard to know what more to say.  

Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Truth. Corruption and sin inside the church are far, far more damaging to the church than the conduct of those who don't believe.

We not only often forget 1 Cor. 9-13, we reverse it -- focusing on the sin outside the church while excusing and rationalizing sin within. https://t.co/sh2cOi5oCd

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 9, 2019

i) False dichotomy: while internal corruption is often more damaging to the church than outsiders, that doesn't mean the conduct of unbelievers can't be equally damaging to people outside the church. No, Jerry Falwell, Jr. isn't a bigger problem than drag queen story hour. Nice diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the fact that the war on normal boys and girls is enormously destructive to the physical and psychological wellbeing of boys and girls. 

ii) Moreover, we live in the world, not in the church. What happens inside the church isn't hermeneutically sealed off from what happens to Christians, as well as innocent children, in the world. 

iii) Furthermore, regimes hostile to Christianity have decimated the church in many parts of the world. 

iv) Finally Falwell isn't the church. Not remotely. He's just one guy. A creep who inherited a Christian college from his dad. Most Christians have zero leverage where he's concerned. That's up to the board of directors, the donor base, and prospective students. 

He's not the voice of evangelicalism. The evangelical movement has thousands of spokesmen across the globe. It's good to condemn him, but that's all most of us can do. 

Accuser of the brethren

I don't know if this is worth commenting on:

https://time.com/5615617/why-evangelicals-support-trump/

He's raising repetitious objections, which invite repetitious responses. I prefer to avoid that, but since his article is getting some buzz, I'll take a shot: 

1. French's attack is reminiscent of Quislings who denounce and disown their fellow citizens to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Establishment.

2. Does he wish to create a society in which we substitute unsubstantiated "claims" of wrongdoing for corroborated allegations? In fairness, given Trump's admitted history of voyeurism and sexual harassment, that erodes the presumption of innocence–not legally but epistemically. Yet even so, we must resist the lynch mob mentality that someone should be ruined by uncorroborated allegations. 

3. It's unclear what French is trying to accomplish. Is his aim to convince folks who don't already agree with him? If that's the goal, his methods are counterproductive. He appeals to his own standards and priorities, as if that's a given. But if he wants to be persuasive, he needs to argue for his standards and priorities.

4.  He doesn't specify what he means by "their previous commitment to political character". Is that a historical allusion to the Lewinsky scandal? If so:

i) Many evangelical Trump voters were children or not even born when that scandal broke, so it's not as if they abandoned their previous commitment to political character. 

ii) Before Bill Clinton there was Jimmy Carter. But many evangelicals voted for Reagan because political character is not enough. 

iii) At best, French's indictment only applies to the subset of evangelicals who at the time of the Lewinsky scandal made a big deal about political character. 

iv) Moreover, there's nothing necessary wrong with adjusting your position when you find yourself in a different situation. For instance, French is an ex-Marine. He understands that the rules in wartime are different from the rules in peacetime. A crisis may justify actions that wouldn't be called for otherwise. 

5. "Fear-based decisionmaking"? Once again, French is an ex-Marine. Is it fear-based decisionmaking to have a professional military class? Is that fear–or rational, moral prudence? 

6. French acts like it's dishonorable for Christians to protect their dependents. But that's a Christian duty (e.g. Mt 15:4-6; 1 Tim 5:8). 

7. In addition, this isn't limited to protecting Christians from harm. Consider the harm done to innocent children of unbelievers by the secular progressive onslaught. Consider the harm done to the elderly and developmentally disabled by the euthanasia ethic. 

8. His standard of comparison is Sunday School theology. That's literally childish, as if our theology should remain at the intellectual level of a 7-year-old. 

In context, the verse he quotes (1 John 4:18) has reference, not to fear in general, but fear of divine judgment. So it has no bearing on the issue at hand. He quotes the verse out of context because he's still thinking at the juvenile level of Sunday School indoctrination. 

9. When he appeals to religious witness, who does he suppose holds the yardstick to measure our witness? Do unbelievers hold the yardstick? Must our witness measure up to their notions of what Christianity ought to represent? Does their opinion dictate what Christianity is allowed to be like? If, on the other hand, the approval or disapproval of unbelievers is not the standard of comparison, then French's appeal is confused and beside the point. 

10. Moreover, his charge is circular. There's an element of copycat syndrome and self-fulfilling prophecy when pundits like French write a script that unbelievers recite. How many unbelievers attack evangelical Trump voter as hypocrites because pundits like French and Russell Moore are feeding them their lines.  

11. It's the duty of gov't to uphold justice and punish wrongdoing. That's straight out of Rom 13. So it's hardly "repulsive" for Christian citizens to demand that gov't carry out its proper mandate. Is it "repulsive" that French is a litigator? He talks out of both sides of his mouth. 

12. "Of all the groups in American life who believe they have the least to fear from American politics, Christians should top the list."

Really? Christian Americans, c. 2019, have less to "fear" from gov't than LGBT mascots of the secular progressive establishment? 

13. French has become a smear-merchant. An accuser of the brethren. It would be one thing if his attacks were more targeted (e.g. Paula White, Falwell Jr., Jeffress, Franklin Graham), but he's become a man who slanders Christians to cheering infidels in the Colosseum. He unites absolute moral certitude with slipshod justifications. That's a bad combination. 

Moral dilemmas for the voting booth and battlefield

How many contemporaneously-corroborated reports of sexual assault do Republicans need to read — or tapes bragging about sexual assault do Republicans need to hear — before they understand the president is a likely sex predator?

— David French (@DavidAFrench) June 22, 2019

A couple of problems with French's tweet:

i) Making moral evaluations about voting isn't about assessing a particular candidate in isolation, but a comparative judgment about competing candidates. You are choosing between one candidate and another. 

ii) French's scruples are ironic and lacking in self-reflection when you remember that French is an ex-Marine. He volunteered for service during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. And he was deployed to Iraq.

Now warfare is notorious for its moral dilemmas. "The problem  of dirty hands". Take airstrikes which will inevitably result in the killing or maiming of innocent children. Children who are blinded or horribly burned or lose arms and legs as a result of air strikes. 

If that's justifiable, how is voting for Trump worse than that? Both soldiers and voters are sometimes confronted with moral dilemmas. Presumably, French endorses the lesser-evil principle to justify his own, voluntary participation in the horrors of war. Why does he have different moral standards for voting and warfare? 

Never Trump now, never Trump tomorrow, never Trump forever

By the way, the porn affairs and hush money payments by themselves are enough for me to never, ever vote for Trump.

And that’s just one thing, of many.

I remember the days, like way back in, say, May 2015, when that would have been a consensus Evangelical position.

— David French (@DavidAFrench) February 27, 2019

There are several ways to evaluate Trump. One way is comparing him to his political competitors when he first ran. That included the primaries and the general election. That's out-of-date. That's refighting the last war. 

And in regards to 2020 (assuming he runs for reelection), that includes comparison with potential Democrat nominees, viz. Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren,  Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Antonio MayorJulian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Joe Beiden, and Michael Bloomberg. 

Another way is to evaluate the policies of the Trump administration.

I like David French, but his current position is irrational. It's like the Amish.

The White House press corps

I'm struck by the fact that David French and Ben Shapiro are siding with CNN over the Acosta kerfuffle. They act like Trump violated Acosta's Constitutional rights. 

This is concerning because it goes to the issue of judicial philosophy. Conservatives typically champion strict constructionism rather than a living Constitution. 

A president can't shut down the press. The press has a right to report on the Executive branch. Has the right to investigate the Executive branch. 

However, there's no Constitutional right to have a White House press corps. There's no Constitutional right for journalists to be stationed at the White House. There's no Constitutional mandate that a president hold press conferences. Or have a press secretary. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

There's no Constitutional mandate that a president call upon a particular reporter. There's no Constitutional mandate that a particular reporter from a particular news outlet have access to the White House. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

Banning a reporter from the White House grounds isn't a criminal penalty. The only folks who are really entitled to be on White House grounds are White House employees. 

It's disturbing when David French and Ben Shapiro hail the ruling of a judge in favor of Acosta. That's the kind of judicial overreach that conservatives are supposed to oppose. Inventing Constitutional rights that have no basis in the text, logic, or history of the Constitution. Their antipathy towards Trump is skewing their judgment. 

BTW, I've never seen the point of the White House press corps. The press secretary will defend whatever the current policy happens to be, whether the policy is logical, illogical, factual, or demonstrably false. It's a vacuous, predictable game in which reporters pose argumentative questions while the press secretary gives evasive, disingenuous, scripted answers. This is equally true for Democrat or Republic administrations. It's not a productive way to elicit useful information.  

The Case against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-case-against-nominee-collapsing/

Is memory unreliable?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-corroboration-necessary-memory-unreliable/

I'm afraid this is too much like Bart Ehrman. I don't regard memory as generally unreliable. I don't regard eyewitness testimony as generally unreliable. Indeed, French often illustrates his articles by talking about his own experiences as a boy or college student. 

There's another factor in the allegations against Kavanaugh, and that's the role of alcohol. Assuming they were both at the same drinking party, if one or both were under the influence, that will make their memories unreliable. Indeed, that will impair their perception of events at the time–much less how well they remember it. 

Burning railcar

Jason Engwer already made some comment on this post:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/catholic-sex-abuse-scandals-should-matter-to-protestants/

I'll add a few of my own:

It’s helpful for understanding the way many Protestants view the larger body of Christ, the “Holy Catholic Church” of the Apostles’ Creed, so here goes: The Church is like a navy, a collection of ships united in purpose and in destination. Each denomination is like a different ship in that navy, and while each crew is primarily tasked with the health and well-being of its own vessel, it’s also deeply invested in the strength of the fleet. Each vessel is more vulnerable as the fleet weakens. Each vessel is stronger surrounded by its protective armada. If the analogy holds, then one of the mightiest battleships in the fleet, the Catholic Church, is taking torpedoes left and right.

i) The persuasiveness of that argument lies in the choice of metaphors. We could, however, take the same idea in a different direction. Innocent bystanders will be killed if they happen to be standing by the target when the bombs drop. They weren't targeted, but they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes you'd better step away from the blast zone if you wish to survive.

ii) Consider a different metaphor: if a railcar is on fire, you should uncouple the burning railcar to prevent the fire from jumping from one railcar to the next, thereby engulfing the entire train. 

Even on pragmatic grounds, there's a lot to be said for disassociating ourselves from the church of Rome. Why should the whole train go up in flames because we refuse to uncouple ourselves from their burning railcar? 

iii) I don't view the Catholic church as a part of the larger body of Christ. I view the Catholic church as a nominally Christian sect that made a number of wrong turns early on, only gets worse because it continues in the same wrong direction–as well as making additional wrong turns. The residual orthodox doctrine and ethics in modern Catholicism is rapidly shrinking. 

iv) Yes, there can be strength in numbers. If Catholic voters in general were conservative voters, if Catholic politicians in general were conservative politicians, then to some degree the Catholic church would protect our evangelical flank. However, the Catholic church in American has been in bed with the Democrat party for decades. The Catholic church is largely responsible for the liberal establishment that now threatens evangelicals as well as conservative Catholics. 

v) The implosion of the Catholic church is an opportunity for evangelicals to take in Catholic refugees. Expose them to the Gospel. 

Second, given the plethora of recent sexual scandals in Evangelical churches and seminaries, the Catholic catastrophe should remind us that perhaps only the lack of an equivalent hierarchy has spared Evangelical churches from similar, systemic sin. “Our” scandals are more fragmented only because our churches are more fragmented. Yet the entire church should be galvanized by what’s happened and diligently consider the extent to which our own congregations are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

No doubt we have our own scandals. That said, the comparison is inapt: 

i) As a rule, sexual scandals in evangelical institutions are heterosexual because evangelical institutions are overwhelmingly heterosexual, mirroring the norm. To some degree, heterosexual scandals are unavoidable because, when straight men and women commit sexual sin, it will be heterosexual.

By contrast, homosexual scandals are largely avoidable by screening out homosexuals. Some will slip through the vetting process, but that's very different from Rome. Rome refuses to even acknowledge that ordaining sodomites is a recipe for disaster. That's aggravated by mandatory clerical celibacy, which creates a magnet for sodomites. They have now burrowed into the priesthood, hierarchy, and ecclesiastical "Deep State" (Catholic bureaucracies, the curia). To my knowledge, no evangelical denomination has a network of homosexual pederasts from top to bottom. The nature and extent of the Catholic abuse scandal has no counterpart in evangelical institutions. 

ii) In addition, some erstwhile evangelical institutions become so corrupt that they must be abandoned. Problem is, Catholic loyalists maintain unconditional fealty to their sect. 

Third, reputational harm to the church can sweep far and wide — well beyond the guilty parties themselves. No one should presume that in an increasingly secular world our fellow citizens can so easily discern the good guys and the bad guys. I remember well moving from the Bible Belt to Boston in 1991, and being stunned to discover that my classmates painted the church with a very broad brush. In my youth and naïveté I had largely pointed and laughed at the televangelist scandals of the 1980s, only to discover that I was one of “them” until proven otherwise, a gullible congregant in a church of con men.

Yes, there's guilt by association. But that provides a teaching opportunity to differentiate ourselves from the Catholic church–or nominally Protestant charlatans. 

Consequentialism for me but not for thee

Even though the Alabama senate race is now at thing of the past, I'll make another observation, because the same issues repeat themselves in future race. 

Do Moore’s defenders not realize the extent to which religious freedom in this nation depends on a host of progressive judges and government officials complying with lawful court orders? For example, the ability to hire and fire pastors according to the dictates of the church and not the federal government was only recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. What if some state judge, somewhere, disagrees? If you accept Moore’s behavior on the bench, you must accept that any judge can defy the Supreme Court whenever he sees fit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454542/roy-moore-election-conservative-case-against-him

it's important to recognize that the main lesson we should learn from this article is that the secular left is watching us, watching to see if we really believe what we say we believe and then will translate that into what shows up even in the voting booth. The world is watching us.

https://albertmohler.com/2017/11/13/briefing-11-13-17/

Notice what the objections of David French and Albert Mohler share in common. They object to voting for Moore because it will have bad results. In the case of Moher, he thinks that sends a bad message. It's a bad Christian witness to the secular left. In the case of French, it's because, if socially conservative judges can defy the Supreme Court, then so can progressive judges. 

Now what's ironic about this appeal is that when some Christians defend voting for Moore (or Trump) by appealing to the dire results of allowing the Democrats to win, that's branded as consequentialism. But then, why aren't Mohler and French guilty of consequentialism when they resort to the same type of reasoning? 

Herr Justice Kennedy

"Justice Kennedy: The Rule of Law Requires You To Enforce the Laws I Made Up" by David French.

The facts of life are conservative

"In the Zombie World, Only the Conservative Survive" by David French