One of the most fascinating phenomena of our time is the number of evangelical Christians brought up in the wake of dispensationalism coming to grips with the problems of the church abandoning the culture.
Now, I understand that dispensationalism, and its reformed cousin–Two Kingdoms (R2K) theology, don’t use the term, “abandon the culture.” And both still embrace the importance of evangelism. However, neither actually expects significant results of this effort. Oh sure, the “frozen chosen” will be sought out and discovered this way, but most of the world and its cultural institutions will continue heading toward hell in a handbasket.
One proponent of Two Kingdoms theology, David VanDrunen, a professor at Westminster Seminary California, expresses a similar sentiment when he lays out his concern about the idea that “Christians are … called to transform [cultural institutions and activities] and to build the kingdom of God through this work.”
The practical results of this abandonment–a culture seemingly disintegrating before our eyes yet with plenty of energy to attack and persecute Christians–has led many evangelicals today to question it, even if they still believe they will one day “be caught up together … in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” while unbelievers are left to fight it out among themselves. It also led many of them to vote for Donald Trump.
Enter David French.
French is one of many in the evangelical community (like VanDrunen, Russell Moore, Ray Ortland, etc.) who seem perfectly fine with the decline of “cultural Christianity,” or what French calls “American Christendom.”
In a recent article, French complained how “American Christendom weakens American Christianity.” He identifies the problems with corrupt “powerful and important American Christian institutions,” particularly focusing on sexual abuse. Reaching back to Soren Kierkegaard, he indicts the “immensely powerful, immensely wealthy Christian institutions that may not be part of the state but in many places are strong enough to exercise power over the state. And they certainly create their own culture, a culture that shapes the daily lives of millions of Americans.”
Yet, as the column moves on, it becomes obvious that the source of French’s angst is not so much Christian institutions as it is those “millions of Americans” influenced by them. What is their crime? After 1200 words, French finally aims directly at his target: the “the mighty power of tens of millions of American Christians … exerted on behalf of a cruel, incompetent man,” Donald J. Trump.
Perhaps French uses institutions as a shield in an attempt to avoid alienating tens of millions of potential readers. Or he may be assuming–like most other cultural elites–that individual Christians are too stupid to come up with rational and reasoned opinions on their own. Whatever the case, it is a fair reading of his piece to understand French’s attacks on Christian institutions as also applying to individual Christians–at least those Christians who voted for Trump.
So in this world as Christians see ever increasing assaults on civil and Christian liberties (btw–while these two are not the same, they are much more closely related than French and friends would admit), what counsel about repentance does French give to us Christians seeking to influence the culture by, among other ways, voting for Trump?
We are to “model the way of the cross.”
Of course, all Christians understand our failure to live the way of the cross. Our offenses in this regard are precisely why we have called on Jesus as our Savior–we need saving from our offenses that have brought upon us the wrath of God.
However, what French lists as offenses are in many cases not failures to model the way of the cross. Rather they are attempts to take Christianity to the culture. Yet, French and company tell us that is wrong, or, at least, it is wrong if it includes voting for Trump or fighting back against big government.
French writes:
What if white Evangelical Christendom had said no? What if the institutions of the faith had opted to lay down their political arms rather than wield the weapon of Trump? What if they had said they would rather risk persecution than inflict pain? That they would rather lose their power than defend lies?
One thing to note here is that only white Christians seem to be the problem. The 8 million or so blacks and Hispanics who voted for Trump–many of whom are Christians–are not of concern. Perhaps because their offenses can be overlooked as being a result of white Christianity’s embrace of institutional racism.
But let’s get to the offences of white Christians themselves. Christians who voted for Trump because of their concerns about abortion, gay marriage, assaults on free speech, oppressive taxation, etc. are condemned for failing to “lay down their political arms.” We must understand, though, that this is only an offence for Trump voters. Those who, like French, took up their political arms to loudly support and vote for Joe Biden are guilty of nothing.
The next offense is the unwillingness Christians to suffer persecution. Rather than fight to infuse the culture with the Gospel, we are to simply follow Christ and “model the way of the cross.” The idea that Christians are being like Christ when we simply suffer assaults from the culture without fighting back is widespread in PCA circles. It is also biblically uninformed. Jesus spent a significant part of His ministry fighting against the corruption of both the religious and civil rulers of Jerusalem, taking on such issues as corporate cronyism and rich rulers exploiting the poor.
Despite their indictment of “conservative” Christians, French and friends seem to take no offense to shaping the culture when it comes to agendas embraced by the cultural elite, especially anti-racism and egalitarianism. Russell Moore, for instance, railed against “white supremacy” in the culture in the Washington Post:
This sort of ethnic nationalism and racial superiority ought to matter to every Christian, regardless of national, ethnic or racial background. …
The church should call white supremacy what it is: terrorism, but more than terrorism. White supremacy is Satanism. Even worse, white supremacy is a devil-worship that often pretends that it is speaking for God.
White supremacy angers Jesus of Nazareth. The question is: Does it anger his church?
Finally, French condemns Christians–at least white, Trump-supporting Christians–for holding onto power by defending lies.
Before tackling this one, let me acknowledge that it might seem odd to focus on David French in the midst of a series designed to examine the failings of the PCA (see Part 1 and Part 2). He is not an elder and has not authored (to the best of my knowledge) any major exegetical works endorsed by the PCA. Yet I do this because through his membership in a prominent PCA church and his role as a journalist French has become one of the most well known voices of the factions that appear to be in control of the PCA’s institutions.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of French and friends’ attacks on Christian institutions and cultural Christianity. They attack “cultural Christianity” while being at or near the pinnacle of Christian institutions that are constantly trying to influence the culture. They do not really have a problem with cultural Christianity. Their concern is with those who do not agree with them on how the culture is to be influenced.
Thus Christians should make no attempt to exhort politicians to not “build his house by unrighteousness, and his upper rooms by injustice, [or] make his neighbor serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages. Neither should rulers “acquire many horses for himself [or] wives [or] excessive silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:16-17). Yet it is okay to “lament the evils of personal and systemic racism in our country.” And defend lies like that of critical race theory.
As far as hanging onto to power, French condemns “the institutions of Christendom” of doing this because they “are rejecting the example of the cross,” i.e., refusing to die as an institution. Yet many in the PCA likewise seem to be holding onto power.
For instance, at the PCA’s 2019 General Assembly teaching elder Steven Warhurst spoke in favor of a overture that spoke strongly on issues relating to homosexuality. The next morning, one elder raised an objection to Warhurst’s statement on the account it was intemperate because “the speaker improperly judged the hearts of Revoice speakers as ‘intending to deceive’” without having talked to those who had made the statements. The objection was supported by a vote of 450 to 408–despite the fact that it was out of order. Because he espoused the belief that the gay community’s self-identification as sexual minorities is an attempt to deceive Christians about the sinfulness of homosexuality, Warhurst–in effect–was branded intemperate by the Presbyterian Church in America.
Selective application of exceptions to the Westminster Confession is also being used for–or at least resulting in–the “reject[ion of] the officers who impede the faithful path forward of the church.” For instance, while it is easy in many presbyteries for a man who rejects six-day creationism to become an elder, it is almost impossible for a man who believes in paedo-communion to be ordained. Guess which of these men is more likely to embrace Frenchism?
Let me bring this to its conclusion by returning to our main subject: the rejection by elitist church leaders of evangelicals who are seeking to undo the harm inflicted by the church’s abandonment of the culture.
Many evangelicals in the PCA, the SBC, and elsewhere are fighting back against the dispensational/R2K idea (advocates would reject this characterization) that no matter how well we in the church rely on Christ, we are going to fail to carry out His commandment to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19–20 ESV).
This evangelical effort to (in effect) reclaim the Christendom that existed in the West for a thousand years has had many facets and names. The Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and the Tea Party (which was not explicitly Christian) are just a few. More recently, it appeared in the form of support of–or at least votes for–Donald Trump. It has not been been perfect. But what is has been grounded in is the sound biblical doctrine that the world should become more like the church rather than the church becoming more like the world.
Evangelicals engaged in this fight are paying the price of being resisted and criticized within our own denominations. Many of those opposing us are adherents of what I have called Frenchism here. They are often advocates of R2K. They appear to be those who are most susceptible to giving into worldly pressures to make the church look like the world. And they are often very unfriendly to what they label “conservative” politics; perhaps in an effort to hide the fact that ideas like lower taxes, less government, eliminating corporate cronyism, etc. are actually based in God’s Word.
The Good News is that all Christians, despite our individual eschatological and political beliefs, believe that one day all nations will observe all that Jesus has commanded us–it is the timing that is in dispute. The bigger question is what role the PCA will play in this glorious drama as it unfolds. As much as many of us would like for the PCA to take part by turning from its present course (that seems to be taking it back into union with the PC(USA)), it is unclear if that will happen. Yet, whatever comes to pass, we can be comforted by knowing that God has all that–and all of us who are His chosen people–in His hands.
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.