A friend asked recently why so many have abandoned core principles of conservatism. Now, it bears observing that not all conservatism is created equal. I am not advocating for some strict approach to economic theory or models of warfare, though all these shapes the conservative agenda. I am advocating for a moral conservatism that fights and doesn’t move in the face of trendy hashtags.
Hence, the question of why folks like David French have fallen so far away from reality is an interesting case study. What we see in Mr. French is a reflection of what has transpired in the paradigm shift of folks like Russel Moore and Tim Keller. Other names could be added, but since these names rule the present conversations, they will serve as prime examples of how these things take place.
No one is minimizing the efforts of these men in some capacity for the kingdom. Russ Moore, for example, has been a great voice in the adoption/fostering revolution. Keller has added much gravitas to the larger apologetic discourse while operating in the most insane part of the Western world; the Amsterdam of civilization, New York City. And we can’t forget the contributions David French has added to the church like…
Now, the original question is fascinating because I think there are culprits that accelerated the political decline of these figures. I have three in mind, which can be applied to all sorts of kids playing provocateurs online, and they are:
First and foremost, Donald J. Trump. Trump made America great again by revealing the centrists for what they are: disinterested participants in Christendom. Centrists–you know, the folks who are dubious about who to vote for in an election and always desiring some instantiation of John F. Kennedy or Marcus Aurelius to rise from the ashes–add nothing to societal solutions because they vacillate between gay marriage and Tom Brokaw. That is, they never know what to stand for and therefore, they live in this ethereal world filled with potentialities like political Molinists. Centrism is the reason for the decline of these once stalwarts.
Now, I read a lengthy article from Keller recently where he does a fine job explaining why he loves mercy and justice so much, which is because the prophets love mercy and justice so much. Therefore, Keller argued, he is perceived to be a liberal by conservatives. I appreciate Keller’s interest in deriving a political agenda from the Old Testament prophets. I think more people should do that, but it is remarkable how picky Keller’s political ideology is. While he uses a buffet of texts from Isaiah about mercy and justice, there is little interest in engaging an economic theology from Proverbs and Psalms. “Imprecation?” No, thanks. Incentives to hard work and responsibility? Nada. The problem is not the texts about justice and mercy; the problem is that centrists find proof-texting delightful. I will take “mercy and justice” for a $1,000, Alex! Yes, but that mercy and justice need to be incorporated in a larger political view of the world.
This and other reasons always make me pause thrice (see KJV) when someone says they are not Republicans or Democrats. Almost always it is code for some idealized view of old Rome and Romanticism. It’s the centrist version of “Hold my beer while I show you the way!”
The “Donald” brought all these things to the forefront. I have written much about how all these political examples of “progress” (see my article on the “Myth of Progress”) began after the Trump election in 2016. Since then, many have fallen faster than David Frum from the conservative roller coaster. What Trump did was bring out the propensities of centrists to happily centralize government and give unto Caesar so much more than he actually deserves. Trump, who barely opined a linguistically sensical sentence, brought out of their caves the linguistically insane. How are the mighty fallen!
The second piece of the pie is Anabaptist theology. Since Rod Dreher’s “The Benedict Option” came on the market a few years ago, we have had a harsh acceleration towards Wendell Berryism. Now, I have added some positive things about the “BO” in the past and since I have a close connection with people very close to Dreher, I know many of the sentiments invested in that book. It is also worth mentioning that Dreher is Orthodox, as in the “road to Constantinople,” Orthodox. This comes with all sorts of sociological impetus-es. Still, the Benedict Option is a fruit of an anabaptist assumption, which I thought was dealt with quite well by Calvin in the 16th century. But apparently, many of these–Russell Moore, et. al.–operate in a significant “spirituality of the church” paradigm. This is a short way of saying that the church ought to stay away from politics, until, they spouse our “politics.” Pardon my modernized translation. I add that Dreher has made lots of helpful clarifications and I stand behind “Live Not By Lies” more so than the isolationist implications of Benedictine monasteries.
I have argued for the Boniface Option instead, which is a bit more intentional about making every thought captive. The argument for idealizing small communities and separating for the sake of re-education is good and wholehearted, but why it has attracted mostly those who have accepted amillennialism into their hearts is another interesting case for why anabaptist theology has gained so much interest in our day.
Some of these advocates are often allergic to conversations about big numbers, and they always view you with suspicion when your project starts to get attention. It reminds me of a historian of a certain denomination who once stated that the beauty of his denomination is that for 100 years it had not grown and therefore, it was not susceptible to compromise.
My general approach is that what is beautiful attracts, even if that attraction takes time to age well in a cellar. In other words, I can stand behind the premise that quick attraction kills, but beautiful things are seed planting investments and you should certainly question a few things if after many, many years that thing offers nothing more than a few dogmatic poster kids.
The other side of the muddy river offers you those whose numbers grow with the wrong kinds of disciples. You need a generation or two to see what doth ideas produce. You need to see if the disciples caught on to the thing, but it’s a sad thing when the disciples take an even bigger turn towards Amsterdam ethics. The Great Commission is a numbers game and David French is gaining the world, but producing disciples that will offer very little but niceties to the political discourse.
The third piece of this pie is the admiration paradigm; what I call admirationism ethics. Now, I don’t think we should purposefully make enemies of folks. But there is a spiraling downward impact that occurs when people find more in common with AOC and Pelosi than with Trump.
I do not believe Keller and others woke up one day and decided to make Joe Scarborough happy with their politics, but Joe does now admire them, and that trajectory happened because of 1,000 little moments of weaknesses. They believed that the discourse required pleasantries and alignment with Black Lives Matter. The beginning was fun. The cocktails were delicious but in the name of racial reconciliation, they allowed voices like Jemar Tisby to whisper into their ears that white people all share the same burden of tyranny. And then they felt that they needed to do something to show their benevolence towards the cause, and then they began to hate Republicans who voted for Trump, and then they started having kale drinks for breakfast. Something like that unfolded, more or less in that order.
The point of it all is that trajectories don’t happen overnight. David French will have to answer for his blatant guilt manipulations techniques and his ever-increasing terrible writing habits that seek to find some new Christian nationalist to hate.
Centrism, Anabaptism, and Admirationism are the culprits of this abandonment of core conservatism. That’s my meager attempt at solving this riddle. The anxiety of the left will do everything to stir anxiety among conservative-minded folks. Stay healthy, my friends. And don’t listen to the Frenches.
3 Replies to “Centrism, Anabaptism, and Admirationism”