Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

David French 2.0

PCA Platforming David French At General Assembly

David French is one of the biggest sellouts in the Evangelical political space. He has accumulated worldly acclaim to the tune of working for the New York Times as a reward for promoting Branch Covidianism, transgenderism, homosexuality, and a host of other liberal causes. David French has even partnered with groups that have taken some dark money from pagans to lecture Christians on political engagement. Despite David French’s liberal reputation, the Presbyterian Church in America is platforming French to lecture the PCA on Christian political engagement.

The premise of the seminar appears to be how to support a squish pastor amid political polarization. What advice does the person who supports gay marriage have for the church? None of any value.

The PCA is a denomination battling liberalism and the orthodox Presbys have the upper hand at the national level. However, the liberals have been persistent in their push for female elders, Side B Theology, and Critical Race Theory. David French’s platforming is a move to shift the PCA in a more liberal direction.

Historically, being weak on homosexuality led to the canceling of Christian leaders. But David French remains an astroturfed pundit thrust onto Evangelicals by pagan organizations, and unfortunately, the PCA is promoting his legitimacy.

Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.

5 Responses

  1. A man who let his fear of Trump and the alt-right drive him too far to the left.

    There is plenty to fear from the left and the right. Anytime you’re dealing with imperfect human beings, you’re dealing with the prospect they could be corrupt, wicked, frauds, and so on.

    The answer is not to overreact to one side or the other, but to stay steadfast and immovable on the straight and narrow, on the sold rock of God’s unchanging word. There’s a reason Jesus said that the way is narrow and few there be that find it.

    A man who fears the Lord more than he fears mankind, and stays steadfast on God’s word, cannot be moved off that straight and narrow, understands that we battle not against flesh and blood, and will speak out against any and all sides when necessary. He will take the Lord’s side in all things.

    Now, the problem with French is that he sets the Bible on the shelf, leans on his own understanding, appeals to civil liberties (as if said liberties are unlimited and those rights don’t end where another’s rights begin), and in the process essentially makes the claim that the commandments of God are unloving and grievous, that God’s standards are somehow bad or harmful for mankind. And so he does the exact same thing he sees being done among the alt right and Trump supporters. He makes his battle against flesh and blood, sets the Bible on the shelf to collect dust, and goes about trying to address the problems of mankind according to his own understanding.

    He’s a bit like Jonah, in that he fled in the opposite direction, rather than doing what God has told us to do.

    There’s no room for neutrality. Either you’re on the Lord’s side, or you’re against Him. That’s how it works.

    I keep going back to 1 John 5.

    “By this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God and keep His commandments.”

    How do we know whether or not we are loving as we should?

    If we love Him and keep His commandments.

    And if we love Him, knowing He loves us, then we know that His commandments are not grievous or burdensome. His commandments and standards are perfectly loving as He is loving.

    What an unloving insult it is to say to one’s very Creator that His standards are unloving. What foolishness it is to say such things when if He did not love you, then you wouldn’t even exist. He would’ve already ended your life and condemned you to eternal punishment. But He hasn’t yet because He is long suffering not willing that any should perish.

    “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” (1 Cor. 16:13)

    Men do not flee to one side or the other, in fear of mankind more than fear of the Lord, going along with the crowd. Men stand firm, on the solid rock of the Lord and His word. And if necessary, stand alone.

  2. If you want to blow the mind of extremists on the left and the right, and completely destroy the narrative, explain to them how it all started with the Geneva Bible. That the Magna Carta, English Revolution of Oliver Cromwell, etc. was the work of puritan reformers.

    The phrase in our Declaration of Independence, that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, would not exist were it not for PURITANS

    Yes, puritans.

    Those same liberators who are nowadays considered to be, and falsely accused of being, a bunch of oppressive totalitarians.

    They understood that our liberties endowed by our Creator are also limited by our Creator. They understood that in sin there is only slavery.

    Yet the world has us going around apologizing for the commandments of God, as if they’re oppressive, as if we are oppressive. Why?

    Why would we be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to salvation?
    … to ETERNAL life, liberty, and happiness?

    1. Thought about this some more while at work. I believe the main point is that from the Magna Carta all the way through to the US Revolution, it was never about a rebellion against the righteousness of government, or the imposition of righteousness, but was always a revolt against the wickedness of government, and the imposition of wickedness.

      If you ask many these days, they’ll view it more as the result of the englightenment, and more or less as a rebellion against the imposition of righteousness. That’s never what it was about.

      Just recently has sin been deemed to be a civil right. Free will has been construed with freedom, and out of that bad reasoning, a supposed right to sin. This is all very recent.

      The reality is that the Creator who gives us rights, which are permissions and licenses of which He approves, gives no one a right, license, or permission to sin. There is no such thing as the right to sin.

      So French and those like him are essentially denying the Creator. When he basically says there’s a right to sin, he’s denying the one who instituted those rights.

      But as soon as you mention the word Puritans, the first thing out of the mouths of secularists, most often feminists and pagans, will be the Salem Witch Trials. Yet what they miss is that hysteria was a matter of wicked false accusations, which started when young women falsely accused a man of practicing witchcraft. And when it finally ended the governor of Massachusetts tried to cover it up because he knew it was wrong. They knew it was wrong at the time. Only one has ever been perfect, and His name is Jesus Christ. But the left chooses a different narrative, to spin that history, to cherry pick, and that’s their mindset – that the notion of civil rights is the fruit of rebellion against the imposition of righteousness. And that is the opposite of reality and the factual history.

      1. And a rebellion against the wickedness, and imposition of wickedness, of both the church of England and the Papacy. Not a rebellion against the Lord or His word, but just the opposite.

        But to them, and it’s some on both sides, the phrase “rebellion against the oppression of the church” has an entirely different meaning. They’re talking about a rebellion against God Himself, and against His word.

  3. This is more evidence to support Singaporean Christian leader Samuel Tow’s warning from 1983: “Today’s Evangelicals, tomorrow’s liberals.”

Leave a Reply