← The SkyePod
The SkyePod
French Friday: The Gaines, Gaza, and "The Bear"
01:06:16
Some Christians are calling for Chip and Joanna Gaines to be cancelled because their new HBO home improvement show features a married same-sex couple. David French and Skye Jethani discuss whether it’s really a principled stand for traditional...
Loading summary
Transcript104 lines
- [00:02]
David French
Guess what day it is. It's French Friday. It's French Friday, so grab your fries and say hooray. David French is here to play on French Friday. It's French fry day.
- [00:18]
Sky Jatani
David French, welcome back.
- [00:20]
David French
Sky. Great to see you.
- [00:21]
Sky Jatani
Yeah.
- [00:22]
David French
Haven't seen you since Superman.
- [00:23]
Sky Jatani
Since Superman. Have you seen the Fantastic Four yet?
- [00:27]
David French
Okay, I'm going to be. I'm going to humiliate myself right now and say no, because. Only because. Only because. In my defense, we were traveling. We were picking up my youngest daughter from her camp. Like, literally been going from, you know, dawn to late at night for days. And so I just haven't been able to. Sky. And it's my. It's a me problem. I get it. It's a me problem.
- [00:51]
Sky Jatani
I'm with you.
- [00:52]
David French
I'm with you, David.
- [00:53]
Sky Jatani
I have not seen it, and partly I have no shame. Going to see a movie by myself. I have no problem with that. But I want to go with somebody to this movie. My son wants to go see this movie. Our schedules. I've been traveling. There's been things. It's just I haven't. So you are welcomed here, David, because we are both delinquent superhero moviegoers here.
- [01:14]
David French
Well, and my youngest daughter is my movie buddy, and she's back from camp, and so we're ready. She said, I want to see Superman. I want to see Fantastic Four. So we're going to. Yeah, I'm going to redeem myself. I'm going to see Fantastic Four soon.
- [01:28]
Sky Jatani
I hope, too, as well. So let's jump into some of the headlines. You wrote a piece for the Times recently about the controversy surrounding Chip and Joanna Gaines. Does anyone not know who these folks are? They're like the largest celebrities in Waco, Texas. Yeah. So they have a home renovation show or series of home renovation shows. Fixer Upper and others. I haven't kept up with all that they're doing, but briefly explain the controversy and why people have got their underwear in a bunch about these guys.
- [01:58]
David French
Yeah. So Chip and Joanna Gaines. I'm not an HGTV watcher myself, Sky. Like, if you were to watch me try to decorate anything, you would know that I'm not an HGTV watcher. But look, no lightsabers in hgtv. Very little warp drive, no dragons. Why would I watch? But they had a show for a very long time for a while called Fixer Upper. Very popular. Eventually began creating their own brand and sort of their own network that's a dynamic. And most recently, yeah, they're huge. They're huge in this world. And they just partnered with HBO Max on a show, a reality TV show with kind of a fun premise where some people give up all their electronics, give up all the modern conveniences, and try to live like people did in, say, 1880 or whatever. Well, one of the families on this show, I'm not sure, I think maybe there are three families on the show. One of the families is a gay family, two married men and their twin kids. And so this set off a giant reaction. And why would it do that? Well, Chip and Joanna Gaines are very famously evangelical Christians. And when I say very famously, what I'm referring back to in November of 2016, when Chip and Joanna Gaines were really sort of gaining in prominence and gaining in popularity, BuzzFeed ran a piece highlighting, not that Chip and Joanna Gaines had ever mistreated a gay employee at all, an article. And there was no allegation of any wrongdoing against Chip and Joanna Gaines. But what it said is they went to a church in Waco where the pastor had a very traditional view of marriage.
- [03:44]
Sky Jatani
So in other words, holding to the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations throughout the world.
- [03:49]
David French
Exactly, exactly. The pastor holds to the same view of human sexuality that almost every single evangelical denomination does. Almost every single evangelical non denominational church does. The Catholic Church, the capital O, orthodox. I mean, so it's sort of a classic 20 teens sort of group shaming effort, cancel culture type effort. Again, not aimed at them because they'd done anything wrong to anybody, but aimed at them as sort of a guilt by association. Look, you go to this church, this church teaches this, and we're telling the world about it. And so a whole bunch of evangelical conservatives, me included, came to Chip and Joanna Gaines defense like, wait, what are we doing here? Why are we saying, is it a news story that somebody has orthodox Christian beliefs? You know, it was.
- [04:36]
Sky Jatani
Right.
- [04:36]
David French
It was one of these things that reminded me, as I wrote in the article, of everything I don't like about Far left cancel culture, the guilt by association, no mercy, no tolerance for disagreement, no belief that anyone in good faith could disagree with what they believe about sex or marriage. And so. And then one of the things, though, that I found most troubling about it was the fact, and I want to emphasize this, they were being attacked without having done anything to discriminate against anybody.
- [05:04]
Sky Jatani
Right. They just were attending a church that affirmed the traditional view of marriage held by Christians throughout history. Yeah, that's their great sin.
- [05:14]
David French
Exactly. And it raised a lot of concerns that Christians, quite legitimately had during some of these culture war periods where the fact that you go to a church, the fact that you hold traditional Christian beliefs, can that be held against you in the marketplace? Can you? Well, you now have fewer opportunities because you hold to a belief about marriage. And so I defended them. A lot of people defended them. Now, let's fast forward almost nine years to 2025. So in 2025, there is a gay couple on the show. And the Christian response was, see, we told you. You can't presume that they would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because simply because they're Christian. No, Sky, I already see your face. No, no, no. That's not what happened at all. What happened was. And now I'm, you know, not all evangelicals, but like this online political evangelical world, accused them of being a faithlessness. Many of them said they needed church discipline for hosting a gay couple on their show. Now, let's keep in mind, again, this is a secular show. HBO Max is a secular television network. And they were treating, in many ways, they were treating this gay couple the way they had been treated by secular individuals who may have disagreed with them but didn't cancel them from their television show. Didn't cancel them. So in many ways, Chip and Joanna Gaines were showing the same courtesy to this gay couple that had been, I think, rightly extended to them by networks that continue to platform them and networks that continue to host them, even though their values might have been out of step with, say, the mainstream of hbo. Right. And so the argument was that they were being faithless or needed church discipline because they were platforming this gay couple. And that created a giant firestorm.
- [07:13]
Sky Jatani
Okay, there's multiple angles into this story that I want to cover, but let's start with this one. Do you think the outrage is sincere, or is it a case of trolls seeing a visible target and going, oh, the Gaines are really popular. They have a huge following. We can get attention if we attack them. Are people genuinely upset that there's a gay couple on one of their home improvement shows, or is this just a target of convenience?
- [07:45]
David French
I think some people are genuinely upset. I think one of the comments that I saw this was in the Gospel Coalition, in essence, that, hey, we wanted some safe entertainment, that we wanted some entertainment that wasn't going to be in our face with values that we oppose, which is, of course, where you typically do when you go turn on hbo. But this idea that we wanted safe entertainment, oh, my goodness, here we have yet another TV show that's going to present challenges to our worldview, and, you know, we'll have to have conversation with our kid. Well, I mean, okay, I understand where people are coming from. I kind of. I have a hard time sort of taking it seriously. I mean, how many kids are watching the HGTV shows? I mean, this is not exactly kids television. But putting that aside, what's the limiting principle here? Do you say? Well, it wouldn't be safe television if we had an atheist couple. It wouldn't be safe television if we had a Muslim couple or a Jewish couple. Wouldn't be a safe television if we had a divorced couple that might have divorced unbiblically and remarried unbiblically. There's all kinds of ways in which people depart from small Orthodox Christian beliefs. And is it just not safe when you're exposed to that, or is it really, really, truly, sky, that a lot of Christians have placed the LGBT community in a very special category all their own, right? As this community is sort of the super sinners. And you can deal with Islam or Judaism or atheism or cohabitation before marriage or adultery and unbiblical divorce and all of that, but lgbt, that's the special category. And honestly, sky, it feels a lot like that, that something like that is going on.
- [09:44]
Sky Jatani
I guess there's a segment of people who would prefer a world in which LGBTQ folks just don't exist or exist in hiding, right?
- [09:55]
David French
Never hear from them, never out of.
- [09:57]
Sky Jatani
Sight, out of sound. But that's not the world we live in. And so, I mean, anybody who's raising kids today, they may chafe against it. They may say they don't like it, but the reality of the world today is one in which these folks are our neighbors and they are sharing the world with us. And you can't just cover your children's eyes and pretend that people who are different or don't conform to your sets of beliefs don't exist. I remember when my kids went to public schools. When they were in elementary school. It was my habit every week to. To during lunch, go and pick one of them up and take them out to lunch. It was just kind of a father kid time. And I remember when my oldest daughter was in third grade, I took her out to lunch, and we're sitting there at Chick Fil? A having our chicken sandwiches, and I said, so, honey, what's going on at school? And she said to me, well, the kids are talking about something, and it's really bothering me because I don't understand it. I said, okay, what's that, and I'm taking a bite of my sandwich and she says, why does President Obama want to kill children or kill babies, I think is the way she put it. And I was like, oh, okay, I guess we're having that conversation. So she didn't know what abortion was. We didn't, you know. And I found myself in an awkward moment at Chick Fil A, having to explain as delicately as possible the nuances of a world in which abortion exists. I didn't want to have that conversation with my 8 or 9 year old, but I did, because that's the world we live in. And that openness and transparency, even at that age, I think built trust and credibility as we went into more and more and more complicated ethical issues. So I don't get this need for some parents to say, I don't want my children to know that there are families that don't look like ours. They exist. And at some point you're gonna have to talk about it.
- [11:46]
David French
And it's actually, I think, ultimately self defeating if you want to raise children in this world as Christian believers. Because what ends up happening is, is that you. And this is a phenomenon I've seen quite a bit sky, and it is. You teach kids for a long time. These people are icky. These people are terrible. The world is terrible. These people in the world are terrible. Everything about the world is terrible. It's our little Christian cocoon. That's good. It's our little Christian cocoon where people are nice. And then these kids grow up in that little Christian cocoon and they encounter a whole bunch of people who are not nice. And they encounter a whole bunch of people who are actually pretty cruel. Not everybody. There's some super great, wonderful people in that Christian cocoon, but it's a collection of human beings, right? And so in a collection of human beings, we have a parable about this wheat and the tares. They grow up together. And so then people leave their home, they leave their cocoon, and let's say they go to a secular college and all of a sudden they meet some gay classmates. And these gay classmates turn out to be maybe really kind people, maybe very high integrity. They encounter people from other traditions who might even treat them better than Christians did. And it creates this disorientation, it creates this sense that, wait, did my people tell me the truth? Did the church tell me the truth about the world? Or were they deceiving me about my neighbor to try to sort of keep me in line, keep me in. And so I think there's Actually a value, a real value in introducing people to the wider world of thought and ideas and who people really are and understanding that the world is really complicated. And some people who do things that I disagree with. So, for example, in the article, I said, look, I just want to be clear. I. I uphold the traditional Christian sexual ethic. I believe in the traditional Christian sexual ethic. I also refuse to discriminate against my LGBT friends and neighbors. I want them to enjoy all the same rights that I enjoy. You can hold these views at the same time without being an unorthodox or heretical Christian. I mean, I believe that Muslims should enjoy exactly the same religious liberty I enjoy. That doesn't mean that I agree that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. No, it's a version of the Golden Rule. I want to protect the rights of others that I would like to exercise myself. It upholds the dignity of other people. And so I feel like that's a far better way of approaching this pluralistic culture than sort of saying, how dare you discriminated against us, Buzzfeed? Or how dare you get to people to try to discriminate against us? And, oh, by the way, when we have power, when we have authority, we're going to darn sure discriminate against you. Yeah, there's a tremendous kind of. There's a sort of a sense of. It's almost like Christian supremacism totally is what it strikes me.
- [14:53]
Sky Jatani
Okay, there's a quote you have. You're getting to this point of kind of pluralism. You quoted Franklin Graham, who posted on X about this controversy, and he said, quote, promoting something that God defines as sin is in itself sin. Okay, so first, there's two different issues here. One is, can you argue that the Gaines are promoting gay marriage by merely featuring a gay couple on their show? I think there's a difference between promoting, advocating, and tolerating or welcoming.
- [15:30]
David French
Right. Or refusing to discriminate.
- [15:33]
Sky Jatani
Refusing to discriminate. So that's issue number one. But secondly, to your point earlier, we seem or they seem to have put LGBTQ people and issues in a separate category. Because as far as I can tell, based on Franklin's definition here, if a Christian tolerates the existence of Muslims or Jews or atheists or Hindus or in some views, different Christian traditions. If you merely tolerate their presence, welcome them into your home, employ them at your business, serve them at the counter. If you do any of that, are you in sin because you're promoting beliefs or ideas that are out of sync with Orthodox Christianity.
- [16:17]
David French
That's what I would encourage. I think you're really hitting on the key point here. I would encourage people who have sympathy for this idea that the Gaines's are somehow promoting same sex marriage by permitting a same sex married couple equal access to their television show. Which is probably. You know, I haven't dived into the HBO Max or HGTV non discrimination policies, but I bet it's pretty darn strong sky right that by not discriminating against this couple you're promoting them. So think of it this way. Would you feel the same way as a Muslim couple? Do they have to exclude Muslim couples or are they promoting Islam? Do they have to exclude Jewish couples or are they promoting Judaism, which is not Christianity. Right. If you. Or atheism, you can just do this all day. And it is not the case that by refusing to discriminate you are promoting or endorsing. Those are not the same things. And I have to constantly remind myself I've been a civil liberties and free speech lawyer for a very long time. And so all of these kind of thoughts are kind of second nature to those of us who've been working in this space. There's nothing morally relativistic about defending the rights of others you'd like to exercise yourself. There's nothing morally compromising on your own convictions about marriage to say that people who disagree with you should have equal rights to participate in the American marketplace. But that's sort of secondhand to people who work in civil liberties. I think this is an ideal moment for I think folks who've worked in these spaces to say, wait, stop, hold on, let's think down the line of the implications of the thinking that by hiring somebody you're promoting whatever they believe. And that is exactly the logic the far left used to try to kick out Christian student groups off campus to take actions against Christian organizations. This was dozens and dozens of lawsuits and controversies that I participated in where their argument was that if they allow for this Christian sexual ethic, for example, to exist and be expressed on campus, or if they allow Christian organizations to hold their leaders to a Christian sexual ethic, that they're somehow complicit in this worldview that they disagree with. And that is not the case. That is not the case. And so we've been spending years saying that to like the university left. And then you turn around and the Christian right is going to. Well, if we don't discriminate, we're complicit. But here's the thing that is especially troubling sky. This is super selective. This is super selective because you look right now. And I was just looking at an advertisement for a conference where Al Mohler is speaking. And guess who is also featured on the same page as him? Peter Thiel. Okay, so Peter Thiel, gay guy who also happens to believe in things like transhumanism and like really weirdo, really weird ideology slash theology. And there's Al Mohler. But what do they have in common? Well, they consider. They're nationalists. They've been MAGA supporters. They've been. And so you start to think. Okay, okay, okay, hold on, let me. What's going on?
- [19:36]
Sky Jatani
Let me dig into that a little bit for a second. Because if you want to argue that the Gaines are promoting same sex marriage by having a same sex couple on their program, how can you not say, is this a Christian conference? That Mohler.
- [19:49]
David French
And it's a natcon. So it's a nationalist conservative conference, not strictly Christian still. But this isn't a Christian show.
- [19:56]
Sky Jatani
I know, but for Al Mohler to willingly share the stage and platform and program with somebody like Peter Thiel is that. Yeah, I just. The hypocrisy there is amazing. The reason why this story kind of lights me up a little bit is it strikes me as the primary problem that we're facing today as Americans, and that is what should our posture be towards the diversity and pluralism of our country and particularly as Christians? This is what my new book is all about. The World Born in youn. I'm wrestling with this in different formats, but do we need to. To create a public square and a country in which everyone agrees with us in order to feel like this is our home? Or is it possible to live alongside people who have very different beliefs and ideas and respect one another and believe we deserve equal treatment under the law and equal respect in our communities? I think one of those sounds far more Christian than the other. And why this is difficult for people to grasp, I don't get. I don't know why it is so hard. I heard, thinking back to an interview I heard with Tim Keller years ago, and I know he's kind of become Persona non grata on the far right, but somebody asked him, because he lived in Manhattan, about how he thinks about his gay neighbors. And of course, Tim Keller held to a traditional Christian theology of sexuality and marriage. And his answer in summary was, I thought, really, really good. He said. He said that he had neighbors who were. Who were Muslims and he had neighbors who were Jews and he had neighbors who were Hindus. And they all had very different ideas about God and spirituality and doctrine and religion. And Tim Keller said, you know, I disagree with most of what they believe theologically because I'm a Christian and they have these other faiths, but I believe that they have the right and should enjoy the freedoms that I enjoy as an American. And I love them because they're my neighbors. And then he said, similarly, I have neighbors who are gay and have different views about human sexuality and different views about marriage. And he said, I disagree with them, but they're my neighbors and I love them and I believe they should be treated with dignity and respect, just like everyone. Why is that a difficult message for people to receive? I don't understand.
- [22:20]
David French
In fundamentalist world, there are two things working at once. One is you have such absolute, blazing certainty that you're right in virtually all respects, that the very existence of opposing views and the expression of opposing views is in many times seen as inherently injurious, because the existence of the. So I'm right, you're all wrong. And what's the value in your expression? What's the value in your liberty when your liberty can only result in maybe people being dragged to hell? Right. And so there's so much certainty around and so much blazing certainty that you look at dissent and platforming those who disagree as inherently injurious. So this is something. I grew up in a much more fundamentalist tradition, and you just saw that kind of thinking all of the time.
- [23:14]
Sky Jatani
But doesn't that betray the fragility of your own belief that the mere existence or presence of somebody who disagrees with you is. Is injurious? That means your faith in that idea is not very strong or secure.
- [23:29]
David French
And it's also particularly weird to see a lot of this coming from the Reformed world, which essentially holds the view that you, before the dawn of time, were predestined and foreknown, that you are going to be one of the children of God, and nothing, nothing can rip you from that, unless it's seeing a gay couple on hgtv, I guess. I don't know. I mean. And so there's this sort of sense that there is an inherent mortal to your soul threat from exposure to contrary ideas. And so that's part of what's going on. And then the other thing that you also have with fundamentalism is a really misplaced view. Not all the time, but often a really misplaced view of your ability to force your own will onto the culture and to force the kind of society that you want and so they, the sort of Christian nationalist fundamentalist world doesn't think that if we disrupt sort of viewpoint neutrality as a constitutional doctrine or if we allow or celebrate employment discrimination against people we don't like, they don't really see this as inevitably coming back to bite them. Yeah, because they're going to be in charge. Which strikes me as just wild, this sort of sense of confidence that in the United States of America, a minority religious belief can enjoy privileged status in American law and culture. Rather, if you have a minority religious belief, it is in your personal interest actually to encourage civil liberties because that is your protection. That is how you are going to guarantee your ability to spread your illiberal ideas is by appealing to liberal structures.
- [25:26]
Sky Jatani
And that's what gave us the First Amendment. It was minority religious sects like the Baptists in various colonies who felt threatened by the dominant religious denominations who advocated for the First Amendment and religious liberty because it protected them. So the idea that you're always going to be the majority is naive. To wrap this up and going full circle to my first question, your point both about, like the Peter Thiel speaking at this conference with Al Mohler and the fact that so many people who appear to be outraged hold to Calvinist reform theology about the irresistible grace and eternal security things, all of that combined brings me back to the question, are people really outraged or is this an opportunistic targeting of a popular celebrity couple in order to score points, drive engagement, get eyeballs on their social media clips, drive their content, sell their books? Is it a target of opportunity?
- [26:27]
David French
I would say for some of these influencers, it's, it's 100% engagement bait. 100%. And also some of the MAGA influencers, it's very timely engagement bait because they're right now in the middle of this news cycle where the man that many of them have presented to America as God's chosen man to save the United States of America and save the church is now found out to have allegedly, as the Wall Street Journal reported like, written this congratulatory, weird, weird congratulatory note with a hand drawing of a nude woman to one of the worst pedophiles that we know about in American history, who had a very long relationship with that pedophile, acknowledged that pedophile's affection for young women, had partied with that pedophile many, many, many times. And then after his team had promised again and again and again to blow the lid off the Epstein files and release them all, refuses to do it, and now blames a plot. Obama, Biden plot. I could go on and on and on. And so this is one of those things where it's an ideal opportunity for people to say squirrel. So it's sort of the religious fundamentalist way of saying squirrel, whereas the MAGA way of saying squirrel is to talk about the Russia investigation again and to raise all of that stuff. And so you do have. This is a very timely and convenient controversy because allowing a bunch of people who covered for and have told Christians they're inherently sinful for not voting for a man who was pals with a pedophile, has been found liable for sexual abuse and openly bragging. Yeah. And is in the middle of just the most humiliating, embarrassing, and really, quite frankly, quite troubling controversy about his relationship with said pedophile. And so the idea that the Chip and Joanna Gaines thing is anywhere within a million miles of significance compared to that story is insane. But it's absolutely engagement bait. And people fall for it. People absolutely fall for it. And the sad thing is, a lot of the people are reading it. You know, good, sincere Christians who are trying hard to live, you know, according to scripture, get this message from people they trust, and it makes them double down on their fear of, and sometimes outright, you know, malice towards gay people. And. And look, it's getting really hard to. To say to LGBT folks that, hey, really, truly, the church loves you and is concerned about sin and separation from God when they can look at the church accommodating all kinds of sin, all kinds of sin, but not them. And that starts to feel like malice more than concern.
- [29:17]
Sky Jatani
Well, this story, for me, is a little glimpse into that bigger problem of how do we live in a pluralistic society faithfully as Christians? And unfortunately, there are Christian voices who are taking us away from that faithful engagement rather than toward it. Okay, let's shift gears. I want to go international for a little bit and talk about what's been happening in Gaza and the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas there. So I don't know if you saw this, David, but just a few hours ago, we're recording this on Tuesday afternoon, July 29th. A few hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom came out and said that they are prepared to recognize Palestinian statehood as early as September if a ceasefire is not established in Gaza. The Prime Minister of France, the President of France, I should say, said something similar. Recently, the United nations came out with a statement that 20,000 children have been admitted for acute malnutrition between April and July and that Gaza now stands on the brink of a famine. Much of the food that's been distributed, the UN says to Gaza, unfortunately requires water or fuel to cook, which neither of those things are available. So technically you can say food's being distributed, but it's not actually able to be ingested. Meanwhile, on Sunday, the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, said, quote, there is no starvation in Gaza. On top of that, a recent poll, I think it was Gallup, found that only 32% of Americans currently back Israel's actions in Gaza, which I think is a low since this whole thing started.
- [30:57]
David French
Yeah, that's low.
- [30:57]
Sky Jatani
Yeah, very, very low. So, I mean, you follow this story closely. We've talked about it on the show before. What responsibilities does Israel have as an occupying army in Gaza for the feeding and basic humanitarian aid of the citizens who are there? And do you perceive what is currently coming out as, number one, accurate reporting? And two, does it put Israel and its government in a culpable position to do something about this?
- [31:30]
David French
Okay, let's go with the second part of the question first and then the first part. So the accurate reporting. Look, there has been a lot of bad reporting in Gaza. A lot of people have been quite gullible in hearing what Hamas says and repeating Hamas statistics and Hamas figures. Because Hamas for a long time has been the governing authority in Gaza. And so Gaza Health Ministry, Hamas, ultimately Hamas controlled all of these Hamas related institutions. You just can't believe them. I'm sorry, you just cannot believe them. Hamas is an evil, evil, evil. Think of Hamas as ISIS and ask yourself, would you believe an ISIS health ministry? Right, so take Hamas, anything Hamas says with the biggest, with a salt, mine of salt. Okay, put that aside for a minute. There is still overwhelming evidence of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Just overwhelming. So you might say in any particular photograph might not be right or any particular anecdote might not be right, but we definitely know there is an overwhelming humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That is not debatable.
- [32:42]
Sky Jatani
Okay, one added thing on that. I go to different sources for news about Gaza and it's sometimes fascinating to go to a place like Al Jazeera or one of these. More, I don't want to say Hamas sympathetic, but definitely Palestinian sympathetic news sources. And you get one narrative, you go to some others. I mean, the only reporters currently allowed into Gaza are the ones there with permission of the Israeli Defense Forces. So you don't have independent journalists allowed into Gaza yet. You don't have independent reporting come out of there. So most of what you're actually getting are from journalists. Filtered through the Israeli government. But even that is showing to your point, there's a disaster unfolding that even the Israeli government, if they wanted to, can no longer hide the world from seeing. So yes, there is a legitimate catastrophe unfolding.
- [33:29]
David French
And how could there not be? You have had mass scale destruction and of a small enclave that a couple million people inhabit and no rebuilding at all. It's still an open war zone and it's going to be a humanitarian disaster. That doesn't mean that there haven't been efforts to try to ameliorate it. There have been, but they're obviously insufficient as of this moment. Okay, so let's do the first part now. The first part is, here's what's very key. You used the word occupation. And what are Israel's obligations? Occupying power? Israel has very deliberately tried to avoid becoming an occupying power here to avoid the. And maybe possibly to avoid those very obligations that I'm going to talk about. So what Israel has tried to do is not to occupy and run Gaza. It has tried to destroy Hamas without occupying and governing Gaza. Okay, so it has pursued what you would call a counterterror strategy as opposed to a counterinsurgency strategy. This is super important. And anyone who's going to talk about this has to understand the difference. Counterterror is what we tried in Iraq before the surge in 06. And what that means is you establish bases around the country and when you know that there's terrorist activity, you go and you just hammer, hammer the terrorists wherever located and wherever found. And so it's like a whack a mole. Wherever they pop up, you hammer them down and then you leave. And then you leave. And so the problem with that is, yes, you can kill a lot of terrorists, but you will also kill a lot of civilians and you will destroy a lot of civilian infrastructure. And after a while the terrorists recome back and then you have to hit the same hole where the whack. You know, in the whack a mole game, the deadliest game, a deadly game of whack a mole. And so what ends up happening when you have a counter terror strategy is exactly what you have now, which is endless combat, no stability, no security, carnage, chaos. And if you destroy the terror army enough, you often end up with a kind of Mad Max type situation.
- [35:49]
Sky Jatani
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying, but maybe there's a difference here between the US and Iraq and the Israeli army in Gaza. But is this a matter of semantics? Because to say no, no, well, let me explain to say we're targeting Hamas in Gaza because they're terrorists. Okay. Prior to October 7, 2023, Hamas was also the governing authority in Gaza. So if you are wiping out Hamas the terrorists, you are also wiping out Hamas the governing authority. That makes sure.
- [36:21]
David French
Completely true.
- [36:22]
Sky Jatani
There's water, there's electricity, there's heat, there's medicine, there's food, all that. So you could say, no, no, we're not killing the governing authority, we're killing the terrorists. Both are true, and depending on where you put the emphasis, completely true.
- [36:34]
David French
Completely true. So the actual way. So the way you should be doing this is not counterterror, it's counterinsurgency, which is you kill the terrorists, you move in, you remove the terrorists and you stay and you provide safety and security and food and water. And then when you've established safety and security and food and water, you move to the next place and you take that back from the terrorists and you establish safety and security and food and water. It's called the inkblot strategy, where you gradually increase your zone of control. That's what we did in the surge. And so we both defeated terrorists and stayed to protect the civilian population. Israel has not wanted to do that.
- [37:23]
Sky Jatani
Why?
- [37:23]
David French
And so it. Well, there's a couple. There's several reasons will go from bad to good. One of the reasons is there is a very. One of the reasons is that there is a sense, I think, amongst some people in the far right of the Israeli government that they don't give a crap about the Palestinian people in Gaza. So they do not see a problem with just hammering the crap out of Hamas and leaving the Gazans to fend for themselves. The expenditure of Israeli resources, the expenditure of Israeli lives to actually secure Gaza, to temporarily govern it until it can be handed over to responsible Palestinian officials and authorities to run the enclave. They have zero interest in that.
- [38:17]
Sky Jatani
But don't you think it's more than just having no interest in the care of the Palestinian people? It actually furthers their political agenda, which is make life intolerable for the citizens in Gaza so that they will voluntarily leave and Israel can take over the Gaza Strip and resettle it with their own. I mean, there's a political goal here. It's not just indifference, it's the furthering of the far right agenda to take all the land.
- [38:42]
David French
Yep. A massive humanitarian crisis is a feature not above for some of these people on the far. Far right. Right.
- [38:49]
Sky Jatani
Many of whom are aligned with the Netanyahu government.
- [38:52]
David French
So then you also have another segment here that Our people remember previous Israeli occupation of Gaza and the departure from Gaza in 05 is a very wrenching moment in Israeli society. And they just don't want to go through that again. They don't want to go through all of the problems of administering Gaza, all of the problems of when to withdraw from Gaza. Then there's also a third element that is an international community that is very pro Palestinian, very anti Israel, just as sort of a default basis. And the very word occupation to them said they treat that as an anathema. And so they would be telling Israel, you can't occupy Gaza, don't occupy Gaza. But the reality is, if Israel wants to do two things at once, one, destroy Hamas and remove it from power, and two, uphold its humanitarian obligations to Gazan citizens, then a temporary occupation is about the only way to do that. It's about the only way.
- [39:51]
Sky Jatani
But don't you think the, there's a moral obligation that Israel has in caring for these displaced citizens in Gaza? Right. That's number one. Number two, if they're worried about international outrage over occupying Gaza, couldn't they very easily say, we didn't want to do this, it was a necessity after the attack on October 7, but we are temporarily occupying Gaza for the safety and well being of the citizens of Gaza, making sure they have basic resources, and we will, as quickly as possible move towards a model where we don't have to occupy this space anymore. But that would get outrage on the far right in Israel that wants to take over that land. So they're playing this. It feels like they're playing a coy game of kind of ignoring their moral responsibilities because it furthers a political agenda and avoids international outrage of occupation.
- [40:49]
David French
Well, and look, they have no problem with courting international outrage now, right? I mean, the international, they're gonna get it one way or another. You might as well comply with the laws of war, uphold your moral obligations at the same time. And also, by the way, conducting more effective anti Hamas strategy. Because the thing that we learned in Iraq, and look, I know for all of you who are listening, who are experts in counterinsurgency warfare, that there are differences between Fallujah and Mosul and Najaf and all of our big urban fights and what Israel is facing in Gaza, I know there are differences, but there are also some striking similarities. And one thing that we learned from 03 to late 05 and early 06 is you can kill a lot of terrorists, create a lot of devastation, and without winning a war, without actually ending your problem.
- [41:41]
Sky Jatani
Okay, David, So before we wrap this part up, it sounds like you believe that there is a legitimate humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. You believe Israel has both a moral and legal obligation to make sure that the citizens of Gaza have access to basic humanitarian needs and that the Israeli government is currently not fulfilling either that moral or legal obligation, which could, I don't know if you'd put this language to it, but could amount to a war crime if that is the case. What is, do you believe, our responsibility as Israel's primary ally in this war? What should the United States government do given those circumstances?
- [42:26]
David French
And let me just also be very clear about something here. I think that Hamas should be destroyed and removed from power. Of course, that after October 7th, I wrote a piece about treating Hamas like we treated isis. But you can treat Hamas like we treated ISIS while complying with the laws of war and your moral obligations.
- [42:46]
Sky Jatani
Right.
- [42:46]
David French
Which is, by the way, what we did. What we did. I'm not going to say we were perfect in this, but we, that was the core thrust of our anti ISIS campaign, was at isis. And also enormous efforts were expended to try to protect Iraqi civilians and to provide for Iraqi civilians. And that was the case the whole time I was in Iraq as well, by the way. And so you can walk and chew gum at the same time. So what should an administration do? Well, sadly, I don't even know if that counterinsurgency inkblot strategy is even viable anymore. That has Israel definitively and finally rejected that idea. It seems that it has. Has the ship sailed on that? I don't know if the ship has sailed on that. Then what you need to do is create, try to reach a ceasefire agreement. That includes release of the hostages. That includes release of the hostages. Because Hamas could end this by surrendering and releasing the hostages, but conclude a cease fire agreement and provide enormous amounts of aid as quickly as possible. We're dealing with some of the wealthiest countries on a, you know, Israel is a very wealthy country on a per capita basis, America is the most powerful, wealthiest country in the world. You know, we, we have ample ability to feed a little less or around 2 million people. Ample ability to do that. But you can't do it in the middle of an active war. And so reaching an immediate ceasefire. Now the, our pushing for a ceasefire, I think is the most practical way of ending the suffering. And then, you know, Israel has got to really take stock. I mean, I think Israel has. Its war has been, from a military perspective, spectacularly successful. Hezbollah has been devastated. Iran has been humiliated. Its nuclear program has been set back to some extent. We don't know exactly how much Hamas has been decimated. But this is a time for Israel to take stock on what it has done in Gaza and to do what it can to provide for that civilian population who is struggling to survive, not just because of what Hamas has done. Hamas used them as human shields. Hamas has committed war crimes at scale, but that does not relieve Israel of its obligations. And so, and then the other thing is, I would urge those, and I count myself as a person who has a supporter of the nation state of Israel. Heck, I worked on a legal teams guy that was defending Israel from previous war crime charges based on previous incursions into Gaza. So I consider myself a friend of Israel, for crying out loud. Friends of Israel, you cannot back them, right or wrong. You know, it is not. You are not being a good friend if you're backing them even when they're wrong. Because there is this reality, a reality that exists and we have seen it with our vets from Iraq. There's a concept called moral injury.
- [45:51]
Sky Jatani
Yes.
- [45:52]
David French
And you are harming, you are harming Israelis. If you are indulging in this kind of mass scale humanitarian or rationalizing this kind of mass scale humanitarian disaster, you are creating moral injury in a society that has long upheld high moral ideals. And when you have large scale departure from the high moral ideals that a society has advocated, then you create a moral injury. You are actually creating suffering in your own population.
- [46:23]
Sky Jatani
Yeah, I mean, that's the part that I think doesn't get talked about enough. I was in Israel a little over a year ago, obviously in the midst of this war. And some of the things that I saw just among the Israeli population was very disturbing, frankly. Martin Luther King Jr. Used to talk about segregation as having sort of two victims. And he talked about ending segregation as a double victory because on the one hand, it would be a victory for the black citizens to have their full freedom and civil rights acknowledged. But he said it would also bring freedom to the white people who practice segregation because he thought that the very practice of segregation was did a moral injury on white people who practice such a dehumanizing thing. Right. So to end segregation would bring victory to both sides. And when I see what's going on in Israel right now, obviously there is unjust suffering of innocent people in Gaza who are starving or not getting the basic necessities that they need. And those people made in the image of God deserve a level of human dignity that they are not being given right now. So that needs to be corrected. On the other side, though, I think there is a moral injury happening to the people and society of Israel that they are tolerating this kind of action on their behalf by their government to so dehumanize their neighbors, their Palestinian neighbors, is bad for their moral formation and character and will, I think, bear really terrible fruit for the nation of Israel in generations to come if they don't repent of this and correct it and free themselves from the moral depravity that their government is currently practicing. And I want to see both of these sides lifted up and dignified in their actions. And that means feeding people who are hungry, caring for those who are homeless, making sure they get medicine and carry basic human needs met, and having your character reflected in the justice that your government practices.
- [48:18]
David French
You know, and I have seen online a lot of people say, why are we holding Israel to a higher standard than we held ourselves? And they go back to World War II and the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all of this. And the British and American daylight, nighttime and daylight bombing campaigns and all of this stuff. And first, extremely. I mean, apples and oranges in the conflict. Apples and oranges in the conflict. Apples and oranges. And the relative capabilities of. Of the American forces to take care of German civilians when they're still under German occupation, you know, still under German control and authority and all of this. But here's what I'll also say one thing that was absolutely clear, because we had two armies marching across Europe in 1944 and 45. We had a Western Allied army, you know, Britain, Canada, the United States, the Free French Forces. Then on the other side, you had the Soviet Union. And they're coming in, and the Soviet Union was brutal. It was brutal. It was horrible to German civilians. It was ethnic cleansing, mass rape, mass murder. Horrific. Americans were extremely violent on the leading edge of our. Because we're facing Hitler's Germany, one of the most powerful military forces ever put into the field. It took extreme violence to defeat it. But guess what? We cared for civilians. We treated POWs with care. And so what happened? Germans who were caught in between these two armies voted with their feet. And they tried to do everything to get over to the American, British, French side because they knew they had a chance to live, to be fed, to not be brutalized the way the Soviets did it. It was a huge military advantage for us, Guy. It was a German troops were more willing to surrender to us than to the Soviets, where they would fight to the last man against the Soviets. Often the non SS forces would surrender to us. Civilians would come to us. There is an advantage that accrues in the real world when you uphold human dignity.
- [50:29]
Sky Jatani
Yes.
- [50:29]
David French
And so I wish people would not say and not argue that somehow upholding human rights and human dignity is impairing your military capacity. No, no. It enhances it over the long run. Absolutely enhances it over the long run.
- [50:45]
Sky Jatani
Right. It's another way of saying national character matters. Okay, before we wrap up, we have a few minutes left to really turn a corner more towards popular culture. You and I just finished watching season four of the Bear. You're now a citizen of Chicago, so you can take pride in that show being a local one. One of my dear friends, Josh Lindsay, was an extra in episode seven, the Wedding.
- [51:18]
David French
Oh, nice.
- [51:19]
Sky Jatani
And we had a party and got together and drank champagne every time he appeared on the screen. It was tons of fun. You also wrote a piece about the bear in the New York Times. What was most poignant for you? What did you take away from the story this season?
- [51:34]
David French
So I'll just say spoiler warnings. So if you've not seen it and you don't want anything spoiled, you can stop listening right now. So I have felt like I was initially a tough sale on the Bear. Didn't sound like my kind of tv.
- [51:51]
Sky Jatani
Again, no dragons or.
- [51:53]
David French
No dragons. No warp drive, no lightsaber. Yeah, right, exactly. No Will Ferrell. You know. Okay, so anyway, a chef comes back and, you know, comes back and tries to rescue a struggling restaurant was not the. Not my ideal television, but I saw so many people raving. I started watching and I was like, oh, oh. The restaurant is the setting for something else. And the restaurant is the setting for a story really about friendship, family and community, both biological family and found family. In other words, people who are sort of incorporated into a family group through friendship over many years to such an extent that they become like family. And what is that like? What is it like to be in that community? How does it live through all the friction, especially the extreme stress of restaurant world? Brought back a lot of memories from my days waiting Table sky, where I talked about this in my piece. I found it so stressful sometimes that I would dream about. I would dream about my job. And it was always the same dream. Everyone's yelling for more sweet tea while I'm paddling to the tables in a canoe. I just can't quite get there fast enough. But it really is about community. And each season I would look at season one as about sort of introduction to this dysfunctional family. Season two, it really fleshes out into about the notion of how community and acceptance and love can heal a lot of hurts and bring people to a lot of purpose. And you saw this in this character named Richie in an episode called Forks. One of the best episodes I've ever seen ever. Until Christian.
- [53:36]
Sky Jatani
It's crazy. I don't know how they wrote, let alone filmed that. Oh, amazing.
- [53:41]
David French
It's beautiful.
- [53:42]
Sky Jatani
Yeah.
- [53:43]
David French
And then you get to season. Season three was a lot of more kind of origin to me. It kind of lagged a little bit. I enjoyed it, but it was a lot of the origin stories of the various individ in the restaurant. Season four had a definite theme and that theme was repentance. Because by the end of season three, it's very clear that the Bear is a wonderful restaurant, but it's deeply dysfunctional. It's incredibly chaotic. And why is it so dysfunctional and chaotic? For the same reason that it's so wonderful. The head chef, Carmi, is a mess. He's a brilliant, talented, remarkable mess. And he's both the kind of talent and the kind of person that people want to be with. Because when he's at his best in the kitchen and as a human being, he's wonderful. But at the same time, he has so many problems with relationships. He has so many problems with, you know, basically accepting happiness is what, you know, one of the things that worked out that he can be incredibly cruel, he can be incredibly petulant. And by season four, he's realizing that he's wrecking the thing that he loves. And so a lot of the season is just Carmi going and making amends. You almost feel like you're watching a show about. I forget which stage it is in the 12 step program where you're making amends. And what was so striking to me about this whole thing is how sorry was not enough. For these people who'd been hurt and wounded by him, sorry was not enough. His mother, who hurt and wounded so many people through her substance abuse, for her, sorry wasn't enough. There's this such wonderful moment where Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays Carmi's mother, is across the kitchen table and she just starts saying, sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. But then you can see Carmi's kind of getting emotional. And then she also says, I've been sober for almost a year, so it was not just a sorry, it was an action. And then later on in the season, you have Carmi repeating I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And people are sometimes even getting angry hearing the words. And then he had an action, and the action again. Spoiler, spoiler, spoiler. I'm going to give my part of the restaurant to the people that in many ways, I've harmed. And it was so powerful and it was so profound, and to me, it spoke so deeply to me. Because we really live in an age where, you know the scripture that says, a bruised reed he shall not break. Speaking of the coming Christ's compassion. We're just a nation of bruised reeds breaking the heck out of each other.
- [56:33]
Sky Jatani
Yes.
- [56:34]
David French
And so a lot of us are living in this world of an enormous amount of pain, and there is just such a need for repentance. And I just thought it was modeled so beautifully in that season.
- [56:45]
Sky Jatani
It is. I'm stunned by the show. I think it deserves every award it can get. The acting is phenomenal. The writing is brilliant. It's very evident the writers behind the show understand, or maybe have experienced themselves, the effects of living in the home of an addict and how that wound gets passed along through the generations and the work that goes into mending it. To Your point, the 12 step programs and things like that, it's just really powerfully depicted. One of the things that struck me throughout this show every season is the reality that incredibly gifted, talented people.
- [57:27]
David French
That.
- [57:28]
Sky Jatani
Gifting can come out of their woundedness.
- [57:32]
David French
Yeah.
- [57:32]
Sky Jatani
And one of the things that it brought up for me when I worked at Christianity Today for a number of years, 11 years, and traveled around the country and interviewed all kinds of different Christian leaders around the country, some of whom were amazing, godly, wonderful people, and frankly, quite a few who were like Carmi. I would say, like incredibly gifted and incredibly broken, terrible people that do a ton of damage. And they were celebrated by those who saw the effectiveness of their ministries and often deeply feared or hated by the people they worked most closely with because they were monsters. You can see how the same brokenness manifests itself in incredible ways and in incredibly destructive ways. And the solution is a need for a deep inner healing. And we've created a system in so much of the American church that rewards people for their talent and impact, even if their soul is a rotten mess. You know, Carmen could be a megachurch pastor is what I'm saying. And the bear, the restaurant, could be a really effective Christian ministry where everybody at the center of it is. Hates one another and is a total disaster. But, hey, everyone loves coming and the food's amazing, and, you know, they're getting written up in Christianity Today magazine or Leadership journal or outreach, whatever, because look how many people they're impacting. You scratch beneath the surface and you see the rottenness of it all. And you and Nancy have reported on many of those kinds of ministries. But my gosh, we are so naive. And we just look at the surface and think everything's great.
- [59:14]
David French
You know, it really is. And this is something that I've long noticed. This is the least original observation in human history. Sky. Okay. Evangelicals like their celebrities.
- [59:25]
Sky Jatani
Yeah.
- [59:27]
David French
And there's been a celebrity culture around evangelicalism for a really long time.
- [59:32]
Sky Jatani
Since George Whitefield at least.
- [59:34]
David French
Oh, it's just been. And it's just wild how intense it can get. And so what ends up happening is talent, which helps create celebrity, creates a zone of impunity.
- [59:45]
Sky Jatani
Yes.
- [59:48]
David French
And you just see this again and again and again. And it's something you see all throughout the world. It's not just evangelicals. Evangelicals are not the only celebrity obsessed group of people. It is a way in which we have conformed to the world. I would say it's a way in particular. It's not that evangelicals are outliers. It's evangelicals have really, really, really conformed to the world on celebrity worship. Now, why would that be particularly surprising? It would be particularly surprising because scripture really stands opposed to this in every way, shape or form. You know, the last shall be first. There's constant, constant references to the way that the people who are following Jesus or who are truly, you know, people who are following Jesus who are hearing from God are not the high and mighty. They're so often coming from the most despised places. And so this sort of idea that the church created by a Jesus who came to an oppressed backwater of the Roman Empire and didn't conquer it and didn't create an earthly kingdom, but then left his church in the hands of a bunch of people who are not elites, regular folks, and then gave this message of this upside down kingdom of God where the last shall be first. That. Then that church created through that ethos then becomes celebrity obsessed to the point where your raw talent or your raw success becomes a rationalization for excusing your sin. It's really sad. It's really sad. And it's just inflicted a lot of harm.
- [61:36]
Sky Jatani
Well, and that's part of the beauty of the bear, is you see all that damage and all that harm, but you also see characters courageously doing the hard work of finding the healing they know that they need. And that will bring Reconciliation to the relationships around them. Like, that's the redemptive arc of the whole show, which is, I think, at its core, deeply Christian in many, many ways. And I. I know there are good Christian leaders doing that kind of work. I wish we were able to acknowledge that and see that. We're like, where is the. The. The celebrity Christian leader, pastor, megachurch leader, whatever, who says, you know what? I've been leading out of a really broken place for a really, really long time, and I am going to voluntarily step away from the spotlight and. And trust God with his own church and go do that hard work and dig into my stuff and meet with the people closest to me, with my children, with my spouse, with my parents, whatever. Do this hard work, seek amends, go through the steps, whatever it might be, so that I can be a healthier follower of Jesus Christ first and foremost, so I can be a source of blessing and healing to the people around me who matter the most. Long before I ever worry about stepping on a stage again or in a pulpit, like, where is that going on? I know it has to be happening, but it's so unusual in our Christian subculture because we just care about the impact. It's all about impact, man.
- [63:07]
David French
Well, and it's always going to be hard to find those people because you know what they're doing? They're shunning the spot. Exactly right. And so let's bring this back full circle to the beginning. There is this wonderful show that is demonstrating repentance in a way that is extremely raw and powerful, that is illustrating repentance in a way that is completely consistent with biblical repentance. And it's not coming from evangelical entertainment. It's not coming from the Christian cocoon. It's coming from a pretty worldly source where it's funny. I was writing about it, sky, and my editor said, hey, why don't we include a few more quotes from the last episode? And I thought, well, the reason I didn't is it's really hard to find one that didn't contain profanity. And this is a family newspaper. Right. So you have this profane show, but also is illustrating this profound virtue. Profound. And so. And God in his providence and God in his grace is delivering is allowing us to receive this beautiful message from an unlikely source. And if that isn't also kind of thematic often in scripture, I don't, you know, I mean, it is absolutely thematic in scripture that you're also. That you're often going to learn beautiful things from unlikely sources.
- [64:29]
Sky Jatani
Exactly. And this is part of the reason why I've said this so many times recently. I'm getting bored with myself. This is why I view the pluralism of our culture as a blessing rather than a threat.
- [64:40]
David French
Exactly.
- [64:40]
Sky Jatani
Even the people with whom I might disagree profoundly on whatever religion, theology, sexuality, politics, I don't care. Even the people with whom I might disagree with profoundly, God can still use to teach me something important. And I'm grateful to have them in my community. And until we have that attitude, I think we are going to continually be susceptive to the. To the trolls out there who are trying to frighten us and divide us and use their fundamentalist angst to create a following and money. And it's all so good place to end. David, thank you for joining us for another French Friday, and I hope you and your daughter get to go see Fantastic Four soon. We'll have to reconvene and discuss that one next.
- [65:30]
David French
Absolutely. Absolutely. And I'm also looking forward to Naked Gun. Got to say, you know, I have.
- [65:36]
Sky Jatani
Not seen a whole lot about that. It's Leslie. Neal. Leslie. No, it was the original.
- [65:40]
David French
Leslie Nielsen died.
- [65:41]
Sky Jatani
Died.
- [65:42]
David French
Liam Neeson. Yeah.
- [65:43]
Sky Jatani
Which I didn't see that coming, but.
- [65:47]
David French
Looks like brilliant casting to me.
- [65:49]
Sky Jatani
It could be.
- [65:50]
David French
We'll see.
- [65:50]
Sky Jatani
All right, thanks, David. French Friday is a production of Holy Post Media, featuring David French and me, Scott Jatani. Music and theme song by Phil Vischer. This show is made possible by Holy Post patrons. To find out how you can become a Holy Post patron and to find more common good Christian content, go to holypost.com.