An Open Letter to Those Who Think I’ve Lost My Christian Faith

Is this “how conservatism dies”?

By
1058
(Photograph from Getty Images.)

It’s been an interesting few days. Ever since I wrote (first in The Atlantic and then on Sunday here in The Dispatch) in support of the Senate version of the Respect for Marriage Act, I’ve been subject to an absolute torrent of online criticism, mainly from fellow Christians. The culmination of the critiques came from Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who took to the pages of World Magazine to pen a piece called “The Parable of David French.” 

“This is how conservatism dies,” he wrote. “This is how marriage is surrendered.”

That’s dramatic! But it’s not as extreme as other critiques, including those who questioned whether I am truly a Christian, who told me I should face church discipline, and who compared my support for the Respect for Marriage Act to support for slavery. I kid you not.

Whew. That’s a lot. It’s always a struggle to know when to keep addressing an argument and when to just move on, but given the continued attacks—now running into their sixth day—I think it’s important to go one more round. And this time I’m going to take a bit of a different approach. I’m going to address directly, from the ground up, why the debate is so confused and why the distinctions between Christian marriage (what I’ll call “covenant marriage”) and civil marriage matter so very much.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
1058
By
Comments (1058)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Borkus Flimflam

    French is right. And many of the comments here make poignant the grave and criminal evil of what constitutes conservative Christianity: the use of the STATE to destroy families and spread human ruin.

    Collapse
  2. Brett Bretthauer

    Mr. French, I don’t know you so I don’t expect you to listen to what I say, but lots of people are listening to what you say and you wrote an open letter so here goes.

    I do not think you’ve lost your Christian faith. However I also do not think that your views on this subject reflect a Christian worldview.

    You said that, according to the Nashville statement, marriage is a “covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.”

    You make it sound like this is just for the church. No, this is what marriage is and was supposed to model whether inside or outside the church, civil or Christian. Marriage is part of the creation order. Just as Christians (though imperfectly) reflect the image of their creator, so too do non-Christians. Their marriages as well reflect the relationship between Christ and His church.

    I would argue that Civil marriages between non-Christians are binding whether the state recognizes and regulates them properly or not. If it were otherwise, we (the church) could tell a non-Christian couple (who were married by someone like a justice of the peace) that their marriage didn’t count. That if they don’t really get along very well and they both become Christians, they are free to marry someone else without committing adultery. No…As 1 Cor. 7:10-15 highlights, the civil marriage covenant transfers directly across whether the person is a believer or not.

    You state that it (civil marriage) “was breakable at will. In fact, civil marriage is a less binding legal arrangement than your typical commercial contract. It’s not a true contract. It’s a quasi- contract.”

    Interesting…it wasn’t always this way, but I also know first hand from watching my parents that there can be some pretty steep financial and material consequences under the law for divorce (even in a no-fault divorce state).

    You continued by saying that “under the definition of Christian covenant marriage outlined in the Nashville Statement, there are millions upon millions of American heterosexual couples who would not be considered properly married under ecclesiastical law.”

    If you’re referring to remarriage after unlawful divorce, there is even debate among conservative Christians whether they should remain married/un-married. But the question is not whether the state gets it right. Yes the State does get it wrong and has got it wrong in some ways even prior to LBGTQ+ pressure. The question is whether or not we should advocate for the state to get it right or support them in getting it wrong…even very, very wrong.

    And yes, the church did relax its holding of the civil authorities accountable to God’s law in regards to marriage prior to LBGTQMNOP. But this they should not have done. You should not be prompting the church to give up defending yet another civil restraint of evil.

    You said “As a matter of faith, I don’t agree with remarriage in the absence of scriptural grounds for divorce, but I can see the state’s interest in creating legal stability in subsequent marital relationships.”

    This is a perfect example of the un-Christian/Christian thinking that previously allowed the changes to civil marriage you described (divorcees arguing that marriage cannot be messed with). Allowing for divorce or union on unscriptural grounds in any society is not in their best interest. Period!

    As Tolkien said to Lewis “No item of Christian morality, is valid only for Christians.” And you’ll never guess what that was in regards to! Take heed…you’re giving the devil more of a foothold in our culture and encouraging others to do the same.

    You said, “The concept of no-fault divorce is alien to me as a matter of faith, but I recognize the reasons for the state interests asserted, especially considering the way in which American law turned a blind eye to domestic abuse and historically failed to grant women equal rights under law.”

    That’s just plain stupidity and laziness on the part of the justice system. Women aren’t being treated fairly so let’s just not punish anyone? If you think that is in the best interest of a society, you clearly either haven’t been closely involved with a divorce or you don’t understand the good that comes from God’s laws. The Biblical punishment for adultery was stoning (the man or the woman). Many times I have thought, “If only our judicial system would have been executing (literally) justice properly…my family may have been spared a whole lot of trouble and heartache.” Maybe the fear of the sentence of death would have stopped my dad from cheating on and leaving my mom. Even if it hadn’t have stopped him, it would have certainly made things difficult when he died but a whole lot easier at the same time.

    But in your open letter you double down on what you have made clear before, “I think the default posture of the state should be toward individual liberty and autonomy, absent evidence of direct harm…”

    It’s naïve to think these things aren’t harming others and, as my wife reminded me, it’s unloving to your neighbor to encourage their sin. You are allowing them to harm themselves. I’m not talking about theocracy, but natural creation order decency.

    Mohler highlighted some of your quotes: “I recognize pluralism as a permanent fact of American life and seek to foster a political culture that protects the autonomy and dignity of competing American ideological and religious communities.” And “I wanted gay couples to enjoy marriage-equivalent legal protections but without changing the legal definition of marriage. I wanted gay couples to enjoy the legally protected right to build a life together….”.

    You defend yourself by pointing out that you aren’t advocating for complete anarchy and unrestrained civil government. But this doesn’t absolve you from the unrestraint you do advocate for. Could it be unbelief that makes you think that allowing your neighbor to sin is the best way to love him?

    Switching gears, you all but say that you only started to care when our Christian freedoms were targeted by the LBGT juggernaut. It’s not just you, Mr. French, but really…how selfish can we be? Do we really only care about ourselves. About whether or not our “religious liberty” is threatened?

    Pragmatism to protect our own hide is one of our main problems. Not that we should ask for persecution by being stupidly un-shrewd. Rather we should expect our freedoms will be taken away (it’s called persecution) when we stand for God’s laws. Are we a Theocracy like Israel? No. We are strangers and sojourners in this land, but we are to be praying for God’s will to be done ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. No Christian should be helping the pagans protect their idols. Period. It’s against the will of God and it’s unloving to your neighbor.

    “But we’ll lose tax exemption!” So What

    “But we’re losing traction and won’t have a chance to win unless we hold onto conservative views and compromise with culture in some ways”. Last time I checked God told us to obey Him and teach others to do the same (Matthew 28:20). In fact we are told explicitly NOT to relax his law nor teach others to do the same (Matthew 5:19, Romans 1:32). God’s sovereign power is not more or less potent depending on our “traction” in the culture or level of persecution. We are to obey, teach others to do the same, and we will be persecuted for righteousness sake (Mat. 5 as well).

    What if we lose our protections to congregate in churches? Let’s pray that never happens, but if it does the church will still gather in secret and in prison. Let’s not be deceived into thinking that siding with what Satan wants (unrestrained evil in the culture) is a better way forward.

    Pluralism may well be permanent to America if we continue to give ground (as you seem to say we should). But if our prayer that God’s will be done on earth as it is in Heaven is genuine, we cannot actively protect and advocate for the opposition of His will.Expand full commentExpand full commentExpand full comment

    Collapse
    1. Borkus Flimflam

      "Pluralism may well be permanent to America if we continue to give ground..."
      I will translate your obscenity: "We will rule, and we will force obedience to our religion." The corollary is that you intend to use the STATE to destroy our families.

      You are evil. You are apostate.

      Collapse
      1. Brett Bretthauer

        What evidence from the Bible do you provide for your accusations against me?

        Pluralism in the sense of everyone doing what is right in his own eyes (as in the times of the judges) leads to destruction and anarchy. Is it loving to fight for your neighbors “right” to run headlong into evil (Proverbs 24:11)?

        I don’t think that Christians have been tasked with enforcing first table commandments via government (as in a full fledged theocracy), but are we not tasked with upholding second table laws and calling everyone to repent and believe the first table ones (Rom 13, Acts 17:30)?

        Is Pluralism (as in the Muslim’s right to build a mosque to a false god) something that we will celebrate and practice in Heaven? If not, should we be celebrating and advocating for such things here and now?

        “Woe to those who call evil good
        and good evil,
        who put darkness for light
        and light for darkness,
        who put bitter for sweet
        and sweet for bitter!” Isa. 5:20

        Collapse
        1. Brett Bretthauer

          Also, I am not saying that there should not be religious freedom. No man is an island and there are many opinions on various aspects of the Christian faith. In other words there should be freedom of conscience within Christianity. The state should definitely not act as it did in the times of the Roman Catholic church.

          However, I am very VERY hesitant to say that this religious freedom should extend to the practice of different religions altogether. I simply don’t think the Lord will say, “Well done good and faithful servant,” to someone who has spent their whole life making sure that other people can sin with impunity.

          So, what do you mean by saying this will “destroy our families”.

          Collapse
          1. Deleted Comment

            This comment has been deleted

  3. Elizabethnlevy

    Thank you for articulating this point so beautifully. I agree with one hundred percent and this piece breaks the argument down. I wish the 10 people I forwarded it to read their emails! I also feel sad looking at the state of marriage as it is today, perhaps it will turn around. It would be wonderful to have more covenant marriage examples.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I agree with this one hundred percent.

    I’m curious though, David. What would your stance be if the state decided to legalize civil polyamorous marriages? I’m asking that sincerely, not out of a desire to score cheap points (on one side or the other).

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Shamus Barcelonus

    David - I was an early subscriber and shared the concerns about Trumpism, but have found this recent kerfuffle a bridge too far. I will not renew my subscription.

    I am not mad, but disappointed. I thought I could trust your voice in these troubling political times, but I can't. Your judgement on this issue flawed, I am not interested in reading more of it, I am sorry. Further, I found the comment section of the Dispatch to be just as toxic as other public forums - not a place I want to hang out.

    Good-bye and I wish you well.

    Shamus

    Collapse
    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  6. Mike W

    David,

    I'm surprised that you haven't referenced Burke's conception of "prudence" being one of the highest political virtues.

    Would it be ideal if all Americans (and all humans) accepted the authority of Christian revelation for the moral guidance of their lives? Absolutely. Is it prudent to insist that every law of the US government be in complete alignment with Christian morality, and that those who deviate be imprisoned? Almost assuredly not.

    How to balance those thing, though? Aye, there's the rub...

    But the Respect for Marriage Act seems to me a most prudent political compromise for our current government at our current age for our current society.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jon.T.Holmlund

    Well---a fairly full-throated affirmation of covenant marriage, to be sure. HOWEVER: the key words in the law's text, as passed by the Senate, are: "nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion." That arguably does NOT include Christian colleges, businesses like Hobby Lobby, and the like. That's from Section 6(b) of the act. David quotes Section 6(a), the "In General" subsection. I think there's space there big enough to drive a truck through. If I'm president of a Christian college, I can affirm covenantal marriage, but can I enforce it, for example by denying college housing to a same-sex couple? Let the lawsuits fly. And a business like Hobby Lobby is more retail than "religious." Is an adoption agency a "religious" agency or one primarily providing another service? I fear we are about to choke on that word, "principal." Not to mention the increasing drift in our churches to begin with--but that's a church matter, not a legal one. AND: what will be told to our children in schools? Again, is a Christian school "principally" about education or about advancement of relition? Fact is--the civil vs covenant marriage ship has sailed in the US, and the polity has gone with civil marriage. I pray my descendants will remain in the rump few who hold to covenant marriage.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Witt Case

      Why can't private religious colleges require moral codes specific to their institutions? Their existence entirely falls under, " study, practice, or advancement of religion" in most readings. Why wouldn't it? Hobby lobby isn't on the same standing but a religious entity that is a non-profit university with required religious credits absolutely be.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jon.T.Holmlund

        I'll invoke the "Foghorn Leghorn" disclaimer: "I could--I say I COULD be wrong."

        Collapse
  8. Snowman

    Letter from Michael Brendan Dougherty to David French
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-god-hath-joined/

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    David French, thanks for articulating your view so well. I am a covenantal Christian as well and I think Mohler has conflated the church and America for a long time. I appreciate his voice most times but he occasionally gets out of line in exactly the way you pointed out. Thanks for doing that. In our current American political environment it's so hard to convince people that religious freedoms are legally safer than ever. The flight 93 doomsday attitude just dominates. Thanks for your steadiness.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Philbnichols

      David French, I need to qualify my support of your article. As a Christian I believe same-sex marriages to be dis-ordered and finally harmful for the adherents. I don't want to encourage any to enter them - for their own good - but that's not my choice. I need to love them appropriately and do what I can publicly to help all to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and its good for society.
      I get that Obergefell has happened and it is law now, and I get that American society is turning away from biblical foundations, but that is not justification for endorsing that turn. Because you see so many "stable, joyful lives in LGBT families", you have responded pragmatically and are almost promoting them. A Christian should be a good citizen, but is always a Christian, and when a society refuses biblical norms, the Christian needs to refrain from endorsing those norms. To my limited knowledge you are a stalwart Christian brother and a good American, but I disagree with your stance here, well-made though it is.

      Collapse
      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

  10. Avatar photo
    Millionbells

    I am from a Christian denomination that performed "covenant marriages" for the LGBT+ community before civil marriages were legal. Please remember that some Christians want their religious liberty from other Christian groups. Government recognition of civil marriages is for everyone, not just those who are part of the vocal (and aspires to power) religion.

    Collapse
Load More