Is this worth arguing about?
Who is David French? He is a columnist for The New York Times. When Douglas Wilson reviewed this article, Gay Marriage, Civil Rights, and Christian Virtue: An Interview with David French, he included that tweet. insanitybytes22 got mad (here => The Vapors of Civic Virtue?) because….well, here is some of what she wrote about Wilsons reaction to that tweet.
And he was absolutely right! People are far more uptight about CRT then they are about the actual injustice currently being experience by real people in our churches. Wilson even acknowledges that he himself feels that way! This truth always sticks in my craw, it’s a bit of gall in the back of my throat year after year. It keeps me set apart from the church at large, the church as institution, which is not a bad thing at all because really, who wants to live in an institution?
from => The Vapors of Civic Virtue?
Now let’s back up here a bit. Let’s consider what that interview with French was about.
In today’s interview, David French joins Public Discourse editor-in-chief R. J. Snell to discuss French’s new position as a New York Times columnist, gay marriage, and how Christians should engage in politics.
from => Gay Marriage, Civil Rights, and Christian Virtue: An Interview with David French
At best French is token Conservative for The New York Times. Because we have a difficult time not taking it seriously, The New York Times is dangerous for the lying propaganda it spews. The New York Times looks like a real newspaper, it sounds like a real newspaper, and it acts like a real newspaper. So, The New York Times is a real newspaper, but its reporters lie. We are supposed to be wary of people who constantly tell lies.
Matthew 10:16 New American Standard Bible
16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves.
Christians don’t need advice from anyone related to The New York Times, and we certainly don’t need a journalist sowing division among us over petty things.
So, what about that choice in French’s ridiculous tweet? Is teaching CRT worse than enabling the abuse of women and children? Is teaching people to hate other people based upon their “identity” worse than abusing other people? Is that a real choice? Are we supposed to do either of those things? Is there really a right or a wrong answer? If my answer is not the same as your answer, does that make me a bad person?
What did Jesus say?
Matthew 5:21-22 New American Standard Bible
21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
I understand Douglas Wilson gets under insanitybytes22‘s skin. Although I don’t know what drives it, I also understand that insanitybytes22 has a real issue with churches that either have or appear to have enabled the abuse of women and children. No Christian should take the abuse of our fellow human beings lightly. Jesus made that emphatically clear.
Matthew 18:1-6 New American Standard Bible
18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him among them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you change and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 So whoever will humble himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name, receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Both instruction in CRT and enabling the abuse of women and children lead children to sin. We do what we are taught, and we copy what we see, even that which is done to us. So, both the thought and the act are abhorrent to our Lord. Since CRT is based upon lies, instruction in CRT requires lying. Enabling the abuse of women and children requires lying and turning a blind eye to the abuse. There is no choice between one or the other. We are not supposed to tolerate either CRT or the abuse of women and children.. So, the “choice” in French’s tweet is phony.
Consider this reply to French’s tweet.
Doesn’t that just about sum up how silly it is to get upset about French’s silliness?
Wilson should not have taken French’s nonsensical choice even halfway seriously, and insanitybytes22 should have rolled her eyes heavenward when he did. Unfortunately, they both took the bait.
If we want to drive a Conservative agenda, we must encourage each other towards useful discourse. Fighting over hypothetical nonsense isn’t that. Whether it is churches or government-run institutions, instruction CRT is evil. We should not be prejudging people using CRT as an excuse. Whether it happens in churches or government-run institutions, enabling the abuse of children or women is evil. Predators need to be locked up as soon as possible. So, we should be debating how to get rid of both, not getting outraged over some idiotic hypothetical.
Citizen Tom 
David French is insufferable. This is a perfect response. “Is this a twitter thing where you invent a hypothetical and then feign outrage about your own made up nonsense”
I used to get French’s weekly newsletter. I had to quit as I got too angry with his hatred of the church and white evangelicals.
Great article.
Blessings.
Anyone who works for “The New York Times” is suspect. Not an ethical organization.
I agree Michael with your take on French. I used to get his newsletter too and I read quite a bit of his stuff when he was with National Review. Needless to say, he’s changed since then…..a lot.
Tom, you used this verse
“6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
In my opinion, many children attending public schools in the USA, having never been taught what is sin, will likely never understand this verse.
Same as the writer in your post will never understand and likely write “silly”articles to influence children to think clueless like him,when they become adults.
Sad
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Given what is going on in the public schools and human trafficking across our southern border, it is weird that some think we need to focus on the abuse of women and children in churches. Nobody makes us go to church. There aren’t any criminal cartels operating in Christian churches.
Tom,
Your titled use of the word “silly” is spot on to describe the writer’s foolish argument. in my opinion.
Regards and goodwill blogging
David French is a provocateur—like many ‘conservative’ pundits, he’s simply the Controlled Opposition. The answer to French should be something like:
“I’m 100% certain that the NYT will never report on child abuse and human trafficking being committed in public schools, child-welfare agencies, and the juvenile justice system on a far more regular basis than a few churches. I’m also certain that nobody will discuss how much financial influence agencies like the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, and other agencies and NGOs engaged in this abuse and trafficking have with the NYT to keep insure they don’t talk about such subjects. How about you, Mr. French? Want to put your money where your ‘outraged’ mouth is and start questioning the truly powerful—or keep going after the politically ‘safe’ targets like churches?”
I think that is called punching back.