David French: Learning the Wrong Lessons
David French, an Evangelical who is palatable to The New York Times, scribed a regurgitation of an essay he had previously written.1 Therein, French mentions his brief flirtation with the ideas of Bill Gothard, who is indirectly known through Amazon Prime’s documentary series on the Duggars.
While one, who is curious with life, will be acquainted with such fringe forms of American Evangelicalism, these are quite alien to non-Americans. These are akin to contemporary American Catholics encountering the mindset of those within their stream who insist upon a Latin Mass.
For French, adopting Gothardism became a prerequisite for marrying a fiancé. It was not sufficient to be a Christian believer for her dad. A certain theological strain was required.
I sat through each session. I tried to be open, but I just couldn’t agree. The ideas in the books didn’t match what I read in Scripture. My parents taught me to value mercy and grace, and I couldn’t see mercy here, just power and control. I couldn’t join Gothard, and that ultimately meant I couldn’t continue my engagement. The entire trajectory of my life changed.
However, the ideas of Gothardism proved incongruent with French’s understanding of Scriptures. And that should have been the life lesson which French learnt and now propagates.
Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.
– Acts 17:11
The op-ed irks now as much as it did when I first read it several years ago. First, a “Fundamentalist” or literalist approach to Scriptures would, indeed, lend an honest and scrupulous Christian to becoming neither left nor right (Joshua 1:7, Deuteronomy 5:32). Those, claiming the Fundamentalist badge, read Scriptures with preconceived notions and agendas which they never bother to question. However, one cannot castigate French for the deviations of “Fundamentalists.”
It is “quest for certainty,” deemed to be toxic” by French, which must be viewed as a questionable standard to be held by a self-identifying Christian.
The quest for certainty and control can tempt people of every faith and no faith . . . We crave control, even when attempts to establish control sow destruction in our loved ones’ lives.
Certainly, the quest for certainty and control can sow destruction. George W. Bush’s doctrine, calling for pre-emptive strikes in order to protect America from all possible theoretical threats, is very much an example of the deleterious consequences of that mindset. However, the quest for certainty does not necessarily result in such a mindset.
There can be and certainly have been individuals and collective entities throughout history whose certainty of convictions have led to tyranny, oppression, and genocidal persecution. However, certainty of convictions is a double-edged sword. Without certainty of convictions, there is neither moral nor civic courage to challenge and confront such would-be tyrants and oppressors.
There are, at least, two ways by which multi-cultural pluralism can be promoted. The prevailing cosmopolitan form, promoted by progressives, is premised upon philosophical and epistemological skepticism. Herein, no one can be certain of anything and therefore can neither impose their beliefs on others nor oppose those beliefs which are imposed on them and others by those who do subscribe to this cosmopolitanism. The cosmopolitan form grants no intrinsic moral strength to its subscribers against would-be Hitlers and Stalins. Indeed, ideological cosmopolitanism historically correlates with the authoritarian regimes of the post-Alexandrian Hellenists and Imperial Rome.
Although many a self-identifying Christian have violated this clear principle, the Christian basis for societal pluralism is that while one may achieve a reasonable degree of certainty of convictions, one of those certain convictions includes a much circumscribed degree by which any such convictions can be imposed upon others.
Disregard them! They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
– Matthew 15:14
The Gospel call is not one which seeks to coercively fashion a “Good Society,” a Platonic dystopia for many. The Hebrews, among others, have tried that and failed for very human reasons.
I’ve long been a classically liberal free-market conservative both because of my respect for human dignity (a state that protects liberty preserves human rights) and because of my knowledge of human limitations (people are inherently flawed and can’t be trusted with concentrated power).
Without certainty, and thus courage, of convictions, French’s quest to maintain a society, which preserves liberty and human dignity, against the petty tyrants on the Left has no chance of succeeding.
David French, “‘Shiny Happy People,’ Fundamentalism and the Toxic Quest for Certainty,” The New York Times, June 13, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/opinion/shiny-happy-people.html.