Here’s the video.

I decided to watch and live-post my thoughts on X. But since scrolling X threads is a pain, here’s the whole thing. Timestamps are approximate.

5:00ish
I get not wanting to call it R (for Radical) 2K but there’s also a need to reckon with why that nomenclature has caught on and is so popular. I say this as someone who does not prefer it--I like E (for Escondido) 2K.

7:00ish
But for whatever definition problems E2K has, CN has vastly more, as it seems to be a much more broad movement. George’s is pretty good, I just wonder how many in the “camp” are content with it.

9:00ish
I think a definition of “secular” would be helpful here, because I’m not sure Dr. Hart is quite using it the way most people do.

11:00ish
Question from me: Is limited government a virtue in itself?
(i.e. limited how? What does limitation seek to accomplish? etc.)

Baird has a good point in his answer (founding limited vs. libertarian limited)

13:30ish
This is a problem I see in these debates a lot--start with America and judge theological questions by America’s traditions/standards. I get that we are in America, but America is not immutable/inevitable (see my KDY article from a few weeks back)

14:30ish
Christianity is not entirely reducable to the gospel (soteriology)

17:00
Why prefer neighbors going to Mass over nowhere if it is not promoting Christianity?

I don’t want people going to Mass either, but if we’re admitting it’s better than nothing, then it would seem to still be a point in favor of Sabbath laws.

19:00
For whatever social good Jews have created, Judaism is a false religion, and it seems strange that a Christian would seek to protect/promote it to the same extent as true religion.

21:00
Don’t even get me started on neocons...

22:00
Are they really flourishing? What profit is it to gain the world but lose one’s soul?

23:00
How can a Christian neighbor invite a Jew to church if (as stated before) Sunday is a day of trade/commerce for Jews which they should not be denied.

This seems to be another unintentional point in favor of Sabbath laws.

25:30ish
Abusus non tollit usum

Just because Puritan Massachusetts failed does not mean that it was wrong in how it was conceived or initially conducted.

The same logic could be used to say that COVID tyranny, LGBT, abortion, etc. invalidate American ordered liberty.

I know historians like to very much flex what has happened, but the mere occurrence of something in the past is not an argument for or against something happening in the future; there needs to be particular applications made.

26:45ish
This is key. Basically every critic of every kind of CN has tried to attack a straw man of establishment. Baird is clearly not establishmentarian and yet Hart is unwilling to grant the possibility of this.

29:00 ish.
Hart appears to be referencing WCF XVI.7

Notably, these “good” works are not really referred to as good beyond “of good use”--they are called “sinful.” It’s a far cry from virtuous.

32:00ish
Hart here rejecting the notion that only Christians are virtuous.

Again, I think WCF XVI is relevant here, because it seems to indicate that only Christians have even the capacity to do what might be considered (with many caveats) good works.

It should be noted that any non-Christian is automatically obtaining a failing grade in virtue, given that they reject no less than 40% of the moral law by which virtue is defined.

40:00ish
Again, are the First Amendment and American equal protection good ends in themselves?

42:00ish
Suppose science succeeds at its goals and makes artificial means by which homosexuals and transgenders could reproduce? What argument remains, then, against gay mirage in this framing?

43:45ish
“America has a long track record of not making that call.”
OK, but were they right about this?

44:30
On the “snowball’s chance in hell”
I’ll just leave this here from my DeYoung article.

46:00ish
It seems strange that Hart seemed rather unprepared for this question on LC 108, given that it has been all over these debates. (He seems surprised that that language was in 108)

And no, the OPC does not grant exceptions.

Further, I don’t think abandoning a quest for Christian civic virtue because “snowball’s chance in hell” is particularly heavenly-minded. Why not consider the power of God over all things more in this discussion?

OK, I have to go touch grass. I may or may not return to this later.

Aaaaaand we’re back!
Starting up again around 50:00

50:30
Why didn’t Jesus and the Apostles do everything they could to promote Christianity?

LC 99: “That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.”

Those apostles weren’t doing much in the political realm during the Incarnation but they wrote a decent amount about it afterwards and in Acts there’s a good many interactions with civil leaders.

52:00ish
It does not seem that Paul appealed to Caesar merely to exercise his rights/overturn his conviction. The case against him was pretty flimsy.

Acts 26:32
“Then Agrippa said to Festus, ‘This man might have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.’”

Immediately after, Hart alleges that Jesus and the apostles might be violating LC 108.

See above. This is fairly basic LC interpretation.

54:00
Another problem that the E2K advocates consistently have is they functionally act like only the NT applies to these discussions. It’s a quasi-dispensationalist reading of scripture. Plenty of other churches have it, the Reformed don’t do that here.

In a way it’s worse than that because even the NT texts are only rather selectively utilized and some questionable applications are made.

Thinking of my critique of VanDrunen on Romans 13 from a while back.

https://publish.twitter.com/?url=

56:00
The way the question “Would America be better if everyone worshiped their (pagan) gods?” gets kind of ducked here is telling. DGH very quickly falls back to the America-driven and not biblical/theological driven reasoning.

57:30
It’s really wild to hear a case for how America being in its present state has little to do with moral/spiritual decline. I’d argue (you know, as a Christian and minister) that that may well be the #1 factor with other things being downstream.

I’d really like to hear, for instance, how world wars, etc. brought the sexual revolution.

1:05:00ish
I’m glad DGH sees the difference between these different strains of CN. I’d like to see that better reflected in his engagement on the issue rather than the usual lumping-and-dumping.

1:09:30ish
If Baird’s views are not out of bounds, what has this all been about?

1:11:00ish
Patriotism is another one of these sticky wickets where it’s only as good as its object. We wouldn’t consider it particularly virtuous to be patriotic for Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

I think American patriotism ought to recognize what is unique/great/special about America but never at the expense of ignoring/downplaying what is causing us to lose it (and we are presently losing it).

1:15:00ish
Sandi Patty reference

1:15:45
Yes, having multiple loyalties is hard, but every Christian is called to do it and, God helping them, can do it.

1:18:00
Principled pluralism requires principles.

Whose principles?

Updated Feb. 5, 2026 - This bill was killed by the House Health & Human Services committee today (including by local Rep. Halverson), on a flurry of emotional manipulation and bad biblical exegesis.

The law is a teacher, and it will continue to teach, in this case, that preborn babies aren’t quite people.

Updated Feb. 4, 2026 - I have added an additional middle paragraph to my letter and submitted it as testimony to the House Health and Human Services Committee, which is scheduled to hear this bill the morning of February 5th. Rep. Halverson who I wrote initially is on this committee, but other members of the committee received the revised version as well.

It came to my attention today that House Bill 1212 has been introduced in the South Dakota Legislature. If passed, this bill would afford preborn persons the same legal protection against murder provided to other persons. To my knowledge, this is the first such equal protection bill to be proposed in the state, and it has already drawn the ire of at least one ostensibly pro-life representative, Fred Deutsch, who objects to the application of homicide laws in the murder of preborn children and imposing criminal penalties on the women who procure it.

I firmly believe that key to eradicating the scourge of abortion in America and the West is calling it what it is and treating it like it is (the willful mass murder of human beings created in the image of God). This hits even harder now with the recent birth of my first child. Reason and biblical morality demand that we live and act according to the truth on this issue, and not the manipulation and emotional blackmail that often prevail.

In light of this, I have sent the following letter to my district’s state representative (Jim Halverson) and senator (Mykala Voita). I would urge my fellow South Dakotans to do the same in their own districts, and residents of other states to advocate similar legislation.

I am writing as a Christian minister, father, and South Dakotan to urge your support in the passage of South Dakota House Bill 1212, An Act to revise provisions in order to strengthen protections for unborn children.

While I am grateful that South Dakota has some of the strongest laws in the U.S. against abortion, a weakness of them is that they do not provide the same degree of protections against murder to preborn children that are afforded to other persons, namely the protections of their lives by the force of homicide statutes. While it has been a common argument of ostensible pro-life advocates that the women who procure abortions are victims of abortion, their moral agency in the act cannot be so readily excused. The vast majority of abortions are procured by women who willfully and knowingly decide to kill their children. Furthermore, in contexts not involving preborn persons, cases where a homicide is coerced, hired, done unintentionally, attempted unsuccessfully, or merely conspired are still punished as crimes under our laws. If preborn children are persons, killing them is murder and they should be afforded the equal protection of the law. To fail to do so is to functionally deny their human dignity and perpetuate injustice.

(Paragraph added for committee testimony) My wife and I welcomed our first child, a daughter, Adelaide Joy on January 18th (a photo of her is attached to this testimony). She was born approximately three weeks early (thankfully, by God’s grace, she is healthy, strong, and at home). This means that even as I write this she has not passed her original due date (February 9). Under the current laws of South Dakota, the question of her human dignity and protection is merely one of location. As our now 39-week post-conception daughter has been born, my wife would rightly be punished to the fullest extent of the law if she did our daughter harm. Yet, if our 39-week post-conception daughter was still in the womb, my wife could kill her and under current South Dakota Statute 22-17-5-2 she not only would not be charged but, in fact, could not be charged (thankfully, my wife is a godly woman who would never consider such a thing, but having a child of such age in the house very much drives the logic behind HB 1212 home).

Not only does reason demand support of this law, but protecting persons from murder and violence is a most essential function of the civil government given by God. In Genesis 9:6, God declares, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” As preborn children are made in God’s image, God commands they be protected even by the use of proportional force, up to and including capital punishment. Romans 13:4 states, “For he (the governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” The bearing of the sword by the civil magistrate is a mandate for the proper use of proportionate and retributive force against those who do evil, especially those who would shed innocent blood. Therefore I urge you, as one to whom this God-given power has been committed, to steward it according to God’s will. Please support HB 1212, in the interest of justice and the equal protection of the lives of all South Dakotans.

Sincerely,

Pastor Andrew Smyth

Hamill, SD

In his 1977 essay, “Comments on an Old-New Error,” in which he critiqued “the over-heated typewriter of Greg Bahnsen,” Meredith G. Kline wrote the following about the American revisions to chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

In support of this position, Bahsen makes precedential appeal to the Westminster Confession of Faith ([Theonomy & Christian Ethics] pp. 537 f.) and, as already intimated, there is a degree of validity in that appeal. For though we may hold that on the subject of the civil magistrate the Confession, even in its original form, is non-Erastian, we must still admit that the original Chapter 23 did attribute to the state the function of enforcing the first four laws of the Decalogue. It must also be acknowledged then that in its original intent, WCF 19:4 must also have placed the “four first commandments containing our duty towards God” (19:2) under the jurisdiction of the state, whatever precisely is meant by saying that the judicial laws given to Israel “expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”

The question that would have to be faced today is whether WCF 19:4 retains its original sense. Did the 1788 revision of the Confession in explicitly modifying 23:3 implicitly modify the meaning of the unchanged wording of 19:4? It is sound hermeneutical policy in interpreting the inspired Word of God to follow the analogy of Scripture. But since neither the original Confession nor its revision was inspired, we cannot simply assume that WCF 19:4 is to be interpreted according to the analogy of the revised 23:3. Is it not possible to argue that the revision was a patchwork job that has left the Confession in a condition of inner tension on the subject of the functions of the state? However that question be answered, Chalcedon can justly claim historical precedence for its position on this matter in the original formulations of the Confession. (emphasis added)

Kline was essentially arguing here that while the original Westminster Confession placed the enforcement of the first table of the moral law in the hands of the state, the revisers of the confession at the founding of the United States did not sufficiently revise them to accomplish their intent (which it seems, in Kline’s view, was to completely remove this enforcement), and thus the confession has been left in something of an incoherent state regarding the role of the civil government.

This is a very odd argument coming from someone who served as an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (as I currently do). As ministers, we vow the following in our second ordination vow:

(2) Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?

How can one in good conscience vow to adopt a confession as containing the biblical system of doctrine while also advocating that it does not, in fact, teach a proper biblical system of doctrine, particularly on matters of the state? I can understand the desire to critique Bahnsen (I think his theonomic project overreached) but the most that could be said is that this was a problem with confessional interpretation, not the confession itself. If Kline believed the confessional standards of the OPC to be a patchwork, he should not have subscribed them. Furthermore, if Kline came to be at variance with the confession on this point, he had a duty to submit the matter to the courts of the church, not publish his differences and agitations in an attempt to teach them to others. Sadly, as is often the case, scholarship and partisanship seem to have trumped churchmanship.

More on Meredith Kline

Kevin DeYoung wrote an article. It is not a short article (over 8,000 words), and it touches on many things. Overall, it is a critique of the movement known broadly and loosely as Christian Nationalism. One might miss this at first, as DeYoung opens by declaring “I am not a Christian Nationalist, but I almost could be.” He tries to frame the article as a friendly critique, but DeYoung’s friendliness does not last long, and sounds like contempt before it is done. It would be one thing if this was yet another critique from yet another evangelical elite to throw on the pile. But this is Kevin DeYoung, perhaps the most well-known and respected of currently living Presbyterians, and the current moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. This means, among other things, that he appointed the committee that is currently studying CN in that denomination. He is an evangelical elite of evangelical elites. He speaks, and people post and share and follow.

And yet, this article, while certainly lacking no praise and accolades in its wake, does seem to miss on some key points of substance. And so I, a nobody of nobodies, shall attempt a response. I approach this article and issue as someone who, dare I say, better fits the label of an “almost could” Christian Nationalist. I have some discomfort with the label because it describes a lot of different things, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don’t. DeYoung relies on Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry’s definition which is a critical definition and I don’t believe quite properly represents the tenets of the broad movement. I am a confessional Presbyterian (a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, specifically) and I take something of an older Presbyterian view, somewhere between old Westminster and early America (which I don’t think are quite as different as DeYoung has elsewhere argued).

Because DeYoung’s article is so long, full of many sentiments and statements about America, CN, and related issues, I’ve chosen to narrow my response to it to two elements. First, I would like to respond to DeYoung’s six questions he poses for Christian Nationalists as one who “almost” is one. Second, I have one burning question for DeYoung and the others endorsing this article as it seems to be hindering this discussion.

1. Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism?

I’m going to lose some points on “unequivocally” here, but one thing that distinguishes my Orthodox Presbyterian Church from DeYoung’s PCA is that in the OPC, we never call the question.

“Renouncing” a position requires holding it in the first place. That which is not held cannot be renounced. DeYoung’s framing of these questions is prejudicial; it assumes some adherence or sympathy to these views by any CN adherent. While these views do clearly exist within the very broad and ill-defined movement somewhere, they are not characteristic or definitional of the whole.

But beyond the prejudicial framing, each of these renouncable terms requires a definition and parameters. I am against harboring hatred or resentment against anyone because of ethnicity or lineage. However, the term “antisemitism” has been heavily expanded and misused beyond that. As a confessional Presbyterian holding to covenant theology and an amillennial eschatology, I have heard views like mine called antisemitic because they do not hold that ethnic Jews remain as the people of God, but rather the church is the one people of God in this world. This “antisemitism” is clear and consistent New Testament teaching. Do DeYoung and those lined up behind him want a renunciation of this? Because I will not be providing it; I cannot in good conscience in keeping with my ministerial vows and charge.

Furthermore, it is often labeled as antisemitic in public discourse to condemn religious Judaism as a false religion because of its rejection of Christ, and to call its adherents to repentance and faith in Christ. Again, my biblical convictions and ministerial vows do not permit me to renounce this.

The “antisemitism” label is also regularly applied by politicians and pundits (and even dispensationalist and Zionist pastors and churchmen) to any who do not offer unquestioned and unqualified support to the 1948 state of Israel. So, for instance, “antisemitism” often describes holding to a political view in opposition to any further Middle Eastern intervention by the United States. I see no compelling biblical or moral case to renounce this view, either.

To use DeYoung’s own definition, “a disdain for Jewish people and a belief that a secret cabal of Jews are responsible for a litany of evils in our world,” I cannot renounce that view because I do not hold to it, and I doubt a particularly large share of Christian Nationalists do, either. I, for one, do not care at all about Nick Fuentes, other than wondering if he is an op (if he did not exist, it seems the establishment would create someone like him as a perfect distraction, bogeyman, and scapegoat). I do think that those who have embraced race realism, reductionistic conspiracies, and racialized ideologies have made a moral and tactical mistake, as they have not only embraced unbiblical hatred, resentment, and bitterness but also made themselves very easy targets for criticism and cancellation.

That said, I think DeYoung’s approach to this question betrays a lack of effort to really understand the movement and what it is proposing. It seems many turn to Fuentes and these unsavory views when because they have been so early and often failed and betrayed by legacy institutions (the sort DeYoung has built his career and platform participating in—more on that in a moment). For someone who seems to major in winsomeness and nuance, DeYoung is very quick to portray Christian Nationalism (something to which even many of his fellow PCA churchmen are sympathetic) in its worst possible light (certainly not in a Westminsterian Ninth Commandment sort of way).

But there is still more to say on this question. I cannot by definition renounce Nazism as defined by DeYoung as “an appreciation for Adolf Hitler and a belief that Nazis were the misunderstood good guys in World War II” because, again, I don’t hold to it, and I doubt most of a CN persuasion do either. I care about Corey Mahler about as much as I do about Nick Fuentes for roughly the same reasons. He also doesn’t seem particularly popular among CN folks that I hear from and talk to. Who does DeYoung think he is talking to?

As to racism, DeYoung offers the definition, “a disdain for non-Whites and a belief in the mental and spiritual inferiority of Blacks” (his use of caps included). Once again, DeYoung’s definitions fall victim to prejudicial and inaccurate framing. Racism is not merely a white-on-black issue. It is clear that minority groups harbor racism towards one another, and many of such minorities harbor racism towards whites. Irwyn Ince, who until recently served as the director of Mission to North America, the PCA’s domestic missions agency, has articulated views and supported the holding of MNA-sanctioned events consistent with black nationalism and racism against whites. He recently co-authored a statement of lament articulating prejudicial views against his white brethren in the PCA (I wrote a different article about that). At this last summer’s PCA General Assembly, one presbyter, Timothy Brindle, sought to bring discussion of this matter to the floor when the matter of re-electing Ince was before the body, but he was swatted down by the moderator for a lack of decorum.

Who was the moderator? Kevin DeYoung. DeYoung had an opportunity to let a blow be struck against racism which has deeply infiltrated his church up to its highest levels, but he actively stopped it. Ince eventually fell into a different pit that cost him his MNA position (that of popery instead of partiality) but it still remains that anti-white racism has been far more popular, influential, and destructive in recent years within the PCA (and other nearby churches and institutions) than any other kind of racism. But in this, DeYoung’s hands are not clean. Besides his immoderate moderating, DeYoung has long been in leadership (along with Ince) at the Gospel Coalition, which has been one of the leading promoters of anti-white racism and racial grievance among evangelicals. Perhaps DeYoung should examine himself and those in his camp for planks before he starts speck-hunting among anonymous internet guys with AI-generated anime pictures and no power or influence. Racism cannot be selectively acceptable. I’ll happily condemn it, but it must be condemned everywhere it is found according to consistent moral principles, not selectively according to political and cultural winds.

2. When and how does the nation act as a corporate moral person?

Here DeYoung seems to be particularly interacting with some statements of Douglas Wilson. There are some good arguments to make that philosophically speaking, nations can and should be spoke of as corporate moral persons; others have treated them better than I could. But I think this question and the approach to it in DeYoung’s article is over-complicated and sidesteps more significant issues. Because the Bible was written in situations where representative self-government was not prevalent, its teachings concerning the role of civil government often address individuals (kings, magistrates, judges, etc.), though with clear corporate implications.

Whether or not the government as a whole acts as a corporate moral person does not change the fact that all governments consist of moral persons. A very basic Westministerian doctrine of the moral law rather settles this question. WCF XIX.5 reads,

The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

In other words, every person, be they a Christian (justified) or not, whether they acknowledge it or not, are bound to obey God’s moral law, that law which is summarized in the Ten Commandments and two Great Commandments. Furthermore, they are not only bound to this law for themselves, but they are bound to ensure that any under their oversight and authority also keep it. The seventh and eighth rules for observation of the moral law in Larger Catechism Q&A 99 state:

That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places...That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.

These principles are derived biblically from texts such as the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) which places an obligation for those with authority over children, servants, and even strangers to see to it that they keep the Sabbath. Someone in the government not only is responsible for being moral and upright themselves but as much as possible ensuring that any within their sphere of authority are moral and upright as well.

Put succinctly, no person can hold any power or authority of the civil magistrate who is not bound to the moral law of God, because no such persons exist. Furthermore, any actions he takes in his government are liable to the moral law (note also that no distinction is made between first and second table distinctions). Whether those within the government are personified as a single person or a collection of many moral persons, these principles do not change.

This can be difficult for modern Americans to grasp because of the popular notion that we are a “nation of laws and not of men.” Ultimately, any law is only as good as those who enact and enforce it. Furthermore, any laws are subject at the individual and corporate level to the higher law of God which is eternal and binding on all. Again, this applies whether people acknowledge this or not; God also does not operate on a principle of “consent of the governed.” DeYoung here seems to be a bit too influenced by modern American thinking and a bit too little by our biblical and confessional tradition on these subjects. More on that later.

3. What is the purpose of the civil government?

While DeYoung (quoting himself) interacts somewhat with Robert Dabney’s teaching regarding Romans 13:4, I think this section once again falls victim to over-complication. Romans 13:1-6 is quite clear that

1. Civil rulers receive their authority as delegated authority from God (v. 1-2),

2. Civil rulers have an obligation to promote the good and punish evil (v. 3-4), and

3. All are to be subject to such lawful authorities (v. 5-6).

Now, the big question here would be, what constitutes the good and evil according to God? I again refer to my answer to question 2: good and evil are defined by God’s moral law. This should be relatively non-controversial among Presbyterians, but DeYoung seems to posit a very different vision for the government:

I do not want government to direct its citizens to the highest, heavenly good, or to order society around true religion, because I do not trust the government to determine true religion from false religion, and because I do not trust human beings to wield this kind of authority well or wisely. I hold these convictions not in avoidance of Calvinist theology, but precisely because I am a Calvinist. A Reformed understanding of human nature should lead one to grant the civil magistrate less power in matters of religion, not more.

There are many layers to this statement. I realize that it represents a very popular line of thinking among confessional Reformed folks in our day, but in light of what I have already said, I think it represents a departure from a classic Protestant moral understanding. The Calvinists who brilliantly articulated our confessional doctrine of total depravity also believed that magistrates could determine and promote public good and suppress evil. I wonder how DeYoung, a Presbyterian minister, can square his perspective even with revised WCF XXIII.1:

God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.

DeYoung seems to advocate against moral civil government because government cannot be trusted. But again, a government consists of persons. In our system, while there are issues of bureaucracy and judicial overreach, at least in theory our government is “for the people, by the people, of the people.” When our rulers are elected, they represent the people putting forth people who represent not only their political but also their moral priorities. In the 2024 election, while Republicans dominated federal elections, there were several states that considered referendums on abortion, and the populace of most of those states voted to loosen restrictions on abortion or prevent the possibility of putting such restrictions into place. DeYoung might not trust the moral intuition of our government, but I for one distrust the moral compass of our general populace. John Adams once famously wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” DeYoung seems to reflect a popular idea that we have an immoral government governing a moral people, but we in fact have a highly immoral government governing what is generally a highly immoral people, and the flaws and failings of our current political system are generally downstream of that.

It would seem that one of the significant goals of most strands of CN is to recapture a moral vision of government, one where liberty is not an end in itself but rather the means toward an end of being moral, virtuous, and yes, Christian, people. In America, liberty has given way to libertinism, and the God-ordained moral purposes of government have fallen into disuse. But this does not mean that God’s word or its moral requirements have changed or relaxed. We should seek to conform our governments to God’s will, not reinterpret our understanding of God’s will through a current failing government.

4. What does it mean for the civil magistrate to promote true religion?

The American revisers of the Westminster Standards left intact the provision of LC 191 that the we ought to pray for the church to be “countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” The very fact that there is a singular “true religion” means that all other religions are false. Given what I have already expressed concerning the moral purposes of government (and not excluding the first table) whatever the government is doing ought to support and uphold the first table moral duties of magistrates and their subjects.

Fundamentally, this means true religion and false religion ought not be regarded as the same. For instance, the government may in no way infringe upon Christian worship, but it may and should in various ways infringe upon the public religious expression of false religions. While the revisers of our standards removed the prohibition of “tolerating a false religion” in LC 109, they left intact the duties of “disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling (this certainly including governors and governments), removing it, and all monuments of idolatry” in LC 108. The Westminster Standards, even as revised, do not endorse secular pluralistic governance. Adherents of false religions may be left free to practice their faith in private (as regulating private activity may extend beyond the government’s lawful authority and practical ability), but they should receive no public endorsement, benefit, or blessing. As moral agents, those with governmental authority ought to detest false worship and remove its monuments. To one of DeYoung’s questions, a Buddhist temple is a monument of idolatry and it would be entirely appropriate and morally upright for it to be removed or renovated to a less-immoral appearance and use.

A moral government should not only govern against false religion but in the interest of true religion. A moral government would re-enact blue laws to protect the Sabbath and permit all Christians to freely worship (and even to remind non-Christians of their obligation to worship the true God and rest from their labors). A moral government could potentially even fund Christian churches, schools, and other such things, though in no way that infringes upon biblical worship and Christian liberty. The early American religious settlement was between various Christian denominations—while others were present, they were very small groups and they did not receive the same public benefits or protections for their faith. This is often in our day believed even by Christians to be some kind of injustice, but if we accept that the government’s purpose is moral, then we must norm our justice according to God’s morality, which cannot be irreligious.

In summary (and also in general answering to DeYoung’s Presbyterian-specific questions), the government is not the church and does not do what a church does, but it does countenance and maintain the church—it seeks the good of the church and orders civil conditions such that the church (and even different Christian denominations—establishment is not a prerequisite to Christian moral civil government) may exercise its own lawful authority and function. Our Standards articulate this, even in the first part of revised WCF XXIII.3:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.

But compare this to DeYoung:

Every political leader must give an account to Christ of his beliefs and behaviors. That is true for all human beings. But once we insist that the government should be in the business of promoting true religion—as the Westminster divines understood that task—we are left with the question of who determines what is the true religion. We can say that we know what the true religion is, and that, of course, is what the civil magistrate must promote. But the clear record of history demonstrates that human beings will not agree on how ultimate spiritual and metaphysical questions should be answered. To require human government to promote the true religion is to expect that government is competent to answer these questions. The result will be something closer to “might makes right” than to the enlightened rule of godly magistrates directing each of us to our heavenly good. A better approach, which most Christians and most Westerners came to discover, is to take government out of the business of discerning (and then promoting) the answers to life’s most important questions.

To which I would reply, if the government is derelict in its obligations to God, it must be reformed according to these obligations, or else lawlessness and vice prevail (as they do in our day). We should not accept biblical and moral abdication, and we should certainly not celebrate it as some improvement as DeYoung does.

5. Was the First Amendment a Mistake?

Again, unwilling to acquiesce to DeYoung’s insistence on calling the question, I must ask what is meant here. Is he referring to the First Amendment in the context it was originally conceived and enacted or the First Amendment as it has been reinterpreted and applied in more recent times? DeYoung seems to begin to wrestle with these implications but comes up short.

The First Amendment particularly regulates the things the federal government may and may not do in matters of religion. The first word of it is “Congress.” Read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment (which reserves any powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] to the states, the scope of the First Amendment seems quite a bit more limited than its modern interpreters would like. And in fact, there were (Christian and Protestant) religious establishments in some of the states, and these remained for decades after. America at the time of its founding was overwhelmingly Protestant, but in different denominations (Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, etc.). In terms of “religion,” Christianity was basically the only game in town. The Bill of Rights did not mandate secular pluralism, but rather it left matters of religious establishment and related matters to lower levels of government. It must be understood in a context of robust and respected federalism. In that context, was the First Amendment a mistake? No, it seems to be a prudent settlement to allow the most of such religious-interested governing to be done by the governments closest to the people they affect. And, any such governing is still morally accountable to God and must prioritize and defend Christianity as the only true religion.

However, if the First Amendment is reinterpreted as an overarching nationwide mandate for a religiously-neutral public square, I would argue that it cannot be squared with the aforementioned biblical and moral principles of civil government. It effectively bars the magistrate from carrying out approximately half (in fact, the most important half—the first table is first for a reason) of his moral duties. DeYoung seems from his line of questioning to have accepted the revisionist nationalized approach to the First Amendment, and tries to make it do things it was never intended to do.

6. What is the historical example of the political order you would like to see in America?

As I hinted at earlier, I’m somewhere between an Old Westminsterian and early American. I think those situations are more similar to each other than DeYoung frequently advocates and radically dissimilar to our present situation. I would be content with federalism in which the role of the federal government in religious matters is limited but state and local governments are free to carry out God’s mandate for moral civil government (and actually do it) without any unnecessary and contrary federal or foreign interference. Sadly, we are far removed from this, and there is not a clear path to recovery. We do not have a moral and religious populace that, short of an unprecedented Christian revival, will self-govern its way back into a properly moral society and government.

This is where more difficult questions come into play, ones that DeYoung and other CN critics who have benefited greatly from the present order of things seem to work hard to prevent being asked. If American self-government is incapable of carrying out the divine moral mandate for government, and there is no path to reform and recovery, does America as we know it even have a future? We ought not expect God to forever endure a nation or government that operates contrary to His will. This brings me to my question for DeYoung and others interested.

Is Present-Day America Immutable and Inevitable?

In his conclusion, DeYoung makes a statement that I think reveals some of the underlying weaknesses of his approach:

Moreover, those with the most outlandish proposals are the ones farthest from any levers of power and most distant from any established institution or in-person constituency. Hosting a podcast does not a political prophet make. We are not getting rid of the First Amendment. We are not overturning the Nineteenth Amendment either. America is not going to become a general equity theonomic republic. Presbyterians are not going to rule America as if we were in seventeenth-century Scotland (and that project had a lot of ups and downs). Likewise, there is no political will beyond the outer reaches of social media for shutting down every mosque and every Hindu temple, let alone every Catholic congregation, every Jewish synagogue, and every Mormon house of worship. And if the above views were widely known, they would be roundly and resolutely condemned. There’s a reason liberal news organizations like to highlight Christian Nationalists: they know that most of their views are repugnant to most Americans.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it becomes clear in comments like these that DeYoung is not nearly so “almost” CN as he said before. Leaving that aside, I am not a prophet or a son of a prophet, but DeYoung here seems to make several dogmatic assertions about the state of America and its government and institutions as though they will not change and cannot change. He’s not the only one to have done this; many critics of CN are quick to dismiss it with some version of “we don’t/can’t do that in America.” If our government not only will not but cannot do what is right, what good is it? “We are not getting rid of the First Amendment.” Maybe not on purpose, but as I already mentioned, America is facing a series of existential crises that, if left unchecked, could bring the whole country down and its entire form of government with it. Fertility rates are collapsing. There will be no America and no First Amendment if there are no Americans (particularly of Adams’ moral and religious sort) to carry it forward. America is currently only being kept from economic recession by data center development for artificial intelligence, and this before we get into AI’s deleterious effects on education, job creation and preservation, and the ease by which it can produce immoral content. The First Amendment no longer protects Christians but is a cudgel wielded against them and their faith. New monuments of idolatry go up daily. The Lord’s Day is now the sports day. Feminism and egalitarianism invert proper social order and hierarchy. Pornography, fornication, LGBT, divorce, and adultery are rampant, normalized, celebrated, demanded, and legally protected. Abortion continues in most states despite Dobbs. Mass immigration, foreign opportunism, and corporate profiteering strain housing and services such that the conditions for safety, family formation, and economic prosperity are disappearing in many areas. Our populace seems rather disinterested in self-governing in ways that seriously tackle these very real, deeply moral problems. That which is pleasing to God is often, in DeYoung’s words, “repugnant to most Americans.” And even if the voting goes right, there are more than enough low-ranking bureaucrats and judges who are willing and able to step in and interfere. America is being stretched to the point of breaking, and very well may break, and if that is the case, whoever is left will need to know a way forward. DeYoung says any CN proposals have “zero chance of being enacted” as though we are able to control the future. We are not, but God is, and while God is merciful and kind He will not toil with a rebellious, idolatrous, and immoral people forever. At some point, it is repentance and reform or destruction and death.

Knowing this should make us quite uneasy as we look at the state of our nation. It should cause us to consider solutions beyond the maintenance of our status quo that is doing a rather poor job of maintaining itself. We could resign ourselves to “zero chance” or we could pray, trust, and act in hope that the sovereign God of the universe may yet again in our nation and in our time vindicate His word and His glory. We serve a God powerful enough to overcome human incompetence and institutional inertia if He so wills.

Finally, while I would agree with DeYoung that we need strong churches and strong families, reforming church and reforming family are not competing purposes with reforming civil government. In fact, it may prove very difficult to reform churches and families if the government is pulling against us. We are in an all-hands-on-deck crisis, and some of us need to learn to multitask. As a pastor, my primary service is to the church, but that means bringing the whole counsel of God to bear on the whole of life, which includes calling upon citizens and governments to properly carry out their moral duties. DeYoung, with his much larger profile and platform, could do this as well, and he seems to think he “almost” does this. Yet he seems to spill much more ink and effort on status quo maintenance than biblical and God-honoring reform.

I have lately been scaling back my activity on traditional social media, particularly X. That said, something that I think is worth public preservation (and something people often ask me for) are my series of threads on the theology of Meredith G. Kline. Kline is the de facto father of modern strands of republication, two kingdoms theology, and non-literal views of creation in the Presbyterian and Reformed world. While the Federal Vision and other controversies Kline reacted against have been heavily documented and criticized, Kline himself and the systems downstream from his thought receive comparatively little scrutiny and analysis. I would like to change that, as I think many of Kline’s ideas were problematic and represent a departure from classical Reformed theology.

I hope at some point to revise and expand these into a more permanent and usable format (articles or maybe a book), but for now I’m putting the most important of them here as PDFs (which preserve other linked posts and quotations that appear as images) so they can be accessed by anyone interested.

1. Kline’s denial of the OT as canon for the Christian church

   

   01 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1607491996419252225

   662KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

2. Neonomianism, but for the Old Testament (quotes are from Kingdom Prologue, page numbers are included)

   

   02 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1591093317567385603

   469KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

3. Comparing Kline (Kingdom Prologue again) to Bavinck

   

   03 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1572620677408083968

   334KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

4. Kline’s rejection of the continuing validity of the Sabbath

   

5. Creation and Flamethrower Rhetoric

   

   04 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1614346573999128578

   429KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

6. Kline on Trinity, Christology, and Pneumatology

   

   05 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1615002848705613824

   943KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

7. The Image of God and Confessional Subscription

   

   06 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1617524615768858625

   784KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

8. Klinean Sectarianism

   

   07 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1640361199895445508

   828KB ∙ PDF file

   Download

   Download

9. My interview on Kline’s theology on Kingdom Polemics with Aldo Leon

10. Merit and Meredith

    

    08 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1674422553253912578

    1.14MB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

11. Various Reformed authors rejecting the idea of man meriting before God

    

    09 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1871621434767970550

    1.34MB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

12. Historical Revisionism

    

    10 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1871655638381842630

    337KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

13. Redefining Grace

    

    11 Threadreader 0 Ref Andrew 1988632176867283309

    82.8KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

14. R. Scott Clark vs. Baptists (but also Kline) on Works/Grace (added 12/18/2025)

    

    14 Clark V Baptists V Kline

    649KB ∙ PDF file

    Download

    Download

15. A Patchwork Confession (Added 12/30/2025)
    

Recently a group of teaching elders, members, and people in “other leadership role”s in the Presbyterian Church in America published a “Call to Prayer & Lament.” This document lays out a series of complaints against the PCA.

“But Andrew,” you ask, “You are not in the PCA, why do you care?” There are a few reasons. First, I was once in the PCA. I initially began preparing and studying for ministry in the PCA. However, it soon became clear to me that the many in the PCA were not interested in addressing the progressive creep within the denomination. At the time I went to seminary, Revoice was at its peak and racial grievance and soft egalitarianism were making inroads. I also learned over time that, sadly, my own commitments to confessional Reformed theology were a bit too serious and intense for much of the PCA to stomach. I say this knowing that there are many good and faithful confessional brothers in the PCA, but I made my choice. The fact that many of the same problems are still plaguing the PCA, dare I say, somewhat vindicates my decision.

But that is not why I care or write about the PCA. While I do not serve in the PCA, the truth is that our denominations are intertwined. The OPC and PCA have joint ventures in Christian Education and frequently collaborate on missions and other endeavors. Many ministers move back and forth between our denominations. Because the PCA is nearly ten times larger than the OPC, it exercises outsized influence on seminaries and other institutions and organizations that serve both of us. I don’t know who first said it, but I find the saying to be true that “when the PCA sneezes, NAPARC catches a cold.” The PCA’s difficulties inevitably become ours.

This is a problem given that, in my estimation, the PCA has been at least two denominations for many years now. When I was a member, I was a part of a relatively small, confessional, traditional congregation in a small city. When I would travel I would visit other PCAs and find basically the evangelical megachurch experience that I thought I had escaped from when I embraced Reformed faith and practice. It was then I began to realize there were two PCAs. On the one side, you have those who tend towards smaller congregations, regulated worship, committed confessionalism, by-the-book polity, and political and social conservatism. On the other you tend to have large urban and college town churches with normative worship (praise bands, anyone?), more permissive interpretations of confessions and polity, and progressive (or at least progressive-sympathetic) political and social stances. I suspect the former likely constitutes a majority of the congregations and membership but the latter has a majority of the money, influence, and institutional control. A good litmus test to determine which side you are dealing with is to ask what they think of Tim Keller (hint: the former will be bearish and the latter bullish. This is an iron law.)

One of the signers of the “Call” was Irwyn Ince, who until recently was the director of Mission to North America, the PCA’s domestic missions agency. Other initial signatories (Kellie Brown, Owen Lee, Robert Blevins, and Charles McKnight) are listed on the MNA website as staff members.

This “Call to Prayer and Lament” is clearly written from a progressive framing. This is clear in its statements on race. Among other things, it laments:

Many of us and those we serve have been persistently excluded, questioned, or sidelined because of our race, gender, or cultural background, and because of the way our convictions and ministry methodologies are at times discordant with the white and male-dominant culture that is normative in the PCA.

This is the typical sort of language of progressive racial grievance that has characterized not only the PCA but much of society and culture in recent years. Ince came under fire this summer for appearing at a racially segregated event held at a PCA church while he was still MNA director. He has made (dare I say, racist) comments questioning the care and safety of black persons serving in predominantly white ministry environments. An attempt was made to address this from the floor of this year’s General Assembly when Ince’s re-election was before the body, but something something decorum, thank you, Kevin DeYoung. The “Call” grieves “the absence of leaders of color at the national level in the PCA.” Again, one of the signers held a national agency head position in the PCA until his recent resignation. Others on the list have also seemingly had no shortage of employment and prominence within the PCA and adjacent parachurch organizations. What more could the lamenters be asking for that they do not already have?1

The statement is also egalitarian. It attempts to frame itself as complementarian (not that complementarianism means much anymore), but the proof is in the pudding. It comes on the heels of the #SaveThePCA investigation which has exposed many PCA congregations of the progressive persuasion as having functional female officers. The women who signed this statement listed as “other leadership role.” Given that leadership, the office of rule, is committed biblically to qualified elders, alarm bells ought to be going off. Again, at least one of the women who signed the statement already holds a staff position within a PCA agency. How then, is she “sidelined because of…gender”? What remains to create “a spiritual family where women are empowered”? The only glass ceiling that is really left to shatter in the PCA is that of ordained office and the functions, roles, and privileges limited to ordained office.

The statement is pro-LGBT. It laments how “The very neighbors we are seeking to love — secular, progressive non-Christians, LGTBQ [sic] individuals, immigrants, people of color, and more — are publicly belittled and demonized, if not by our words then by our legislative actions.” Further, “We continue to long for an ecclesial home where…Those wrestling with complex identities and callings find safety, truth, and grace.” I would be curious what “legislative actions” they find objectionable. As I said earlier, the Revoice controversy played a part in my decision to leave the PCA. Greg Johnson, a PCA minister who identified as a homosexual, was never (to my knowledge) convicted in any PCA court of an offense in doctrine and life, and was free to leave as a minister in good standing (I don’t think this was a good thing, but them’s the breaks). Some amendments to the PCA’s Book of Church Order were made that make it more difficult for homosexuals to hold office. Again, what more do the lamenters want? Do they want homosexuals to be affirmed, even to the point where they can hold office? Because if so, they probably are not a good fit in a church that holds that homosexuality is a sin2 and thus bars homosexuals from office. These are the kind of debates currently dominating mainline churches (see the recent assemblies of the Christian Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church [USA], and the United Methodist Church), not the ones who ostensibly left the mainline over 50 years ago.

So the statement is not good. But so what? As I stated earlier, I think the PCA has been at least two denominations for quite some time. At some point the differences are of such substance that a church cannot continue in peace and purity as long as they remain. That leaves grim options. Those who hold to the unbiblical and offending views could face church discipline unto either repentance (preferred) or removal. Given how the statement declares that “Some” (who?) “have described the denominational environment as emotionally or spiritually abusive, particularly toward leaders from marginalized and/or minority backgrounds” and it laments “doctrinal gatekeeping and judicial processes that drain energy from mission and ministry,” there seems to be an unwillingness on the parts of the authors to submit to judicial process (which itself is a violation of the PCA’s membership and ordination vows). Furthermore, there has to be a willingness on the part of the PCA’s presbyters and courts to actually initiate such a process and see it through when there are obvious and public sins and infractions occurring. There are times to amend the BCO but there are also times to put the BCO to work. And it is not merely enough for there to be process, the process must come to righteous, just, and biblical conclusions that allow the church to continue in peace and purity. The church courts cannot declare “‘Peace, peace!’ when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14).

That’s one grim option, likely an unpopular one. But what is the other? If the PCA is not willing to do what is necessary to guard the peace and purity of the church, then there will only be more and greater disagreement and degradation, and inevitably separation. The two functional denominations will become at least two actual denominations. The issues that plague the PCA now are the ones that have been lines of fellowship many times in many other churches in recent history. The PCA initially separated from the PCUS in part over the women in office issue. The CRC was expelled from NAPARC (and the URCNA separated from it) when it began ordaining women as ministers and elders. The churches that would not hold the line on women in office have inevitably turned to issues of homosexuals in office and more. These are not agree-to-disagree issues. For many (myself included), they are inviolable markers of faithfulness to God’s word and the truth of Christian profession.

You can put oil and water in a bottle, but they cannot mix and you will still have oil and water. You can try to put the pieces two puzzles in the same box and mix them up, but at the end of the day you still have two puzzles. Similarly, you can put confessional, conservative Presbyterians and egalitarian, progressive evangelicals in the same visible church, but you will never have true peace, purity, and unity among them. Some things just don’t belong together.

Image: Richard Pope, used under CC BY-SA 2.0 license. Division Bells are located near the UK parliament to alert members that it is time to vote.

1

Update and correction Dec. 10, 2025: Pastor Aldo Leon revealed that two of the original signatories, Carter Brown and Felipe Assis were administratively divested from being PCA Teaching Elders, earlier this year. I initially included this as an update in the article.

Rev. Leon provided an update later in the day that the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission reversed this decision and reinstated them

I apologize for reporting and commenting on the outdated information.

Update 12/11/25: Rev. Leon provided a further description of the process.

Mormons are not Christians. They worship different gods.

From their own sources: churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-…

It is a mystery to me why (other than seeking to deceive) the LDS would want to identify themselves with a movement they consider apostate.

More from Doctrine & Covenants, one of the LDS “scriptures”

Logically, the LDS would either need to claim that they are the *only* Christians, or they are not Christians at all. But “we’re Christians like the rest of you” is absurd.

Happy Windows 10 death day to those who celebrate.

If you’ve been caught up in Microsoft’s latest planned obsolescence scheme, before buying a new computer (bad), workaround hackery (worse), or running an unsupported system (worst), maybe try Linux.

Mint is a good distribution for beginners.

Mint is what I started with and is what I still run on my work laptop. I now run CachyOS on my home desktop which is a bit more complicated but offers a bit more power and customization.

Finally, Ubuntu is a stalwart, and I run a variation of it on my old Surface tablet (which almost certainly would have been e-waste by this point if I was trying to run current bloated Windows 11, but the more efficient system has extended its life)

Point being, you have options, and you can probably find one that works for you.

All of these, by the way, are free and donor-supported.

“But my software requires Windows!” You might have options. For instance, LibreOffice is a free, open-source office suite that does just about everything MS Office does, cleanly and efficiently.

Fellow pastors and theology nerds who use Logos, there is Ou Dedetai, a project that has made great strides in making Logos run on Linux and other non-Windows/non-Mac OS setups. I use Logos on my systems every day with minimal hiccups.

You might be surprised to learn that many modern Reformed and Reformed-adjacent folks reject or at least seriously doubt @james_d_baird’s premise #1, “Government must promote the public good.”

While this seems to be a fairly clear idea derived from texts like Romans 13 and has been maintained consistently in our confessional documents (even under American revisions), the modern two kingdoms paradigm casts doubt upon it.

I first ran into this in a journal article by David VanDrunen (one of the major movers behind modern 2K) some years ago (before I was even his student). He makes similar arguments in Politics After Christendom, his 2020 book.

Let me say at the outset, as a former student who knows DVD, I don’t have any personal animus against him, he’s a good man and scholar. But I have come to disagree with his political project quite significantly.

VanDrunen in PAC talks about the functions of government in three categories: protectionist, perfectionist, and providing services. He does acknowledge some limitations to the framework, but it does seem to be highly influential in his thought. (PAC p. 329-330)

The protectionist functions would seem to most closely align with the negative Romans 13 functions (bearing the sword, suppressing evil). VanDrunen has no qualms with these whatsoever. (PAC 330-332)

However, he is uncomfortable with perfectionist functions, which (IMO) entail the positive Romans 13 functions of praising the good. He argues that proper protectionism sufficiently shapes behavior in good directions, without the gov’t acting in that direction. (PAC 332-333)

DVD argues as he often does that the Noahic Covenant norms and limits civil governments. He uses this Noahic paradigm to come down largely against perfectionist (morally positive) functions of government. (PAC 333-334)

When DVD later turns to Romans 13, he argues for a very narrow and Roman-contextualized idea of the praising of good that is described there. (PAC 336-337)

I don’t find this explanation of the positive prescriptions of Romans 13 compelling at all; it seems very novel (only a single journal article from 1988 is cited in defense). Perhaps this shows some of the methodological problems of modern biblical scholarship.

While DVD never conclusively rejects perfectionism, he continues to assert that it is uncomfortable with his Noahic paradigm. He at least provides a basis for the rejection of a morally positive vision of government. (PAC 340-341)

VanDrunen’s ideas in this field are highly influential, having been taught in the classroom to likely hundreds of ministers and academics over the years who are now in our churches, and even beyond that through his published works.

As we come to a point of broader reckoning with political theology (through studies on Christian Nationalism and things of the sort) there needs to be honest and open examination of some of the more modern ideas like VanDrunen’s that have brought us here.

I’m noticing over the last few days a lot of attempts from within the PCA to justify DeYoung’s actions in the name of “decorum” and adherence to Robert’s Rules. I’m not buying it.

The thing with assembly decorum and Robert’s, they are not good ends in themselves. This might sound semi-blasphemous from a Presbyterian, but hear me out...

RRO and the decorum it and other rules require of ecclesiastical assemblies are tools. Like any tools, their value and goodness depends on what they are used for. They are not, for instance, morally binding in themselves. They are “good servants , but terrible masters.”

If Brindle said anything so egregious, it should be fairly easy to address it in categories of sin. RRO provides for smooth operation of meetings. State legislatures use them with utmost decorum, for instance, to pass evil laws furthering abortion, LGBT, etc.

The actions of MNA in the past year have scandalized the PCA and the church as a whole. I’m disappointed (yet sadly not particularly surprised, given the state of institutionalism in the church) that major changes in leadership and personnel (which is policy) have not come.

There’s a bit of a consistency problem when the harshest of terms and actions are being employed in the same assembly to condemn racialized nationalism while the denomination’s domestic mission agency seems to be run by someone captive to a form of racialized nationalism and the rules and decorum don’t have anything to say about the former but come down hard when someone notices the latter and says something. If the meeting of the whole church where Ince’s employment is the issue is not the time and place to address this, what is?

If RRO and standards of decorum (as tools) are being used as obstacles to dealing with real problems in the church, what good are they? In the tool analogy, if you have a chainsaw, you could build a beautiful log home, but you could also do Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

As an OPC guy, I know well (and many in the PCA also know well) what happened to J. Gresham Machen in the PCUSA. Polite moderate men with proper rules and decorum destroyed the man of truth and courage and condemned their church to slow death. Learn from this, or repeat it.

The PCA (as w/most denominations) has been infiltrated at various points by worldly ideologies. There’s a slowness to address these problems by the people who see them and a quickness to retaliate and punish by those furthering the problems and their moderate sympathizers.

Rules and decorum cannot accomplish what only courage, virtue, and sacrifice can. Good men must say hard things (and they must have place and time to say them) or else the problems will only continue to spread and destroy.

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Either leaven must be purged or it will continue its work. And leaven can leaven with utmost procedure and decorum.

ADDENDUM: I saw Ryan Biese’s (@RFBWCF) article as well as Matthew Everhard’s @matt_everhard’s interview with Brindle. Brindle reported boos and hisses when he spoke and Biese reported raucous cheers and whistles when Ince was re-elected.

Is that decorum suitable for the assembly?

ADDENDUM II: Brindle has published a statement explaining his actions. https://www.timothybrindleministries.com/posts/unpacking-our-concerns-about-affinity-groups

Reconquista has been tried. With very limited exceptions, it has failed.

Those limited exceptions are things like the SBC conservative resurgence and the LCMS Seminex controversy (which are largely over and the problems have returned). Maybe the CRCNA now, but it’s a long road ahead and they weren’t nearly as far gone as the RCA, PCUSA, etc.

In the LCMS and SBC cases, it was a conservative majority fending off a loud, institutionally empowered liberal minority. They were still predominantly orthodox and conservative bodies. Nothing like the mainline of today.

It should also be noted that the SBC, LCMS, and CRC, while being kind of historically mainline, have distinctively more liberal counterparts within their tradition (the American Baptists, ELCA, RCA, etc.) There’s more natural exits through which to force the liberals.

Historical Sources about Ordination of Women among Episcopals, Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians
https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2014/07/28/ordination-timeline/
https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-why-does-the-united-methodist-church-ordain-women
https://bwim.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Durso-final.pdf
https://www.cumberland.org/hfcpc/minister/woosleyL.htm
https://pres-outlook.org/2019/10/the-rise-of-women-in-the-pulpit/

Study on Female Pastors in the SBC by Kevin McClure at American Reformer
https://americanreformer.org/2023/06/how-many-female-pastors-are-in-the-sbc/

Zachary Garris, “Complementarian Deviations”
https://americanreformer.org/2024/10/complementarian-deviations/
(See also his books, Masculine Christianity and Honor Thy Fathers)

Owen Strachan, former president of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, taking a revisionist position on Genesis 3:16: https://x.com/ostrachan/status/1864766502697611462

Andrew Smyth, “Reformed Seminaries took Millions in Federal COVID-19 Aid” (on Title IX and related issues)

Once for All Delivered

Reformed Seminaries took Millions in Federal COVID-19 Aid

UPDATE 1 (3 Jan 2023): This article was updated after release to include Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary’s HEERF use…

Listen now

3 years ago · Andrew Smyth and Once for All Delivered

Backwoods Belief podcast episode on “Shadow Elders”
https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/backwoodsbelief/episodes/Shadow-Elders-in-the-Church-e2m6chs

Andrew Smyth, “The Trouble with Seminary Accreditation”

Once for All Delivered

Ep. 32: The Trouble with Seminary Accreditation

Seminaries seem to inevitably slide towards theological and political liberalism, yet no one seems to know why. On this week's OFAD, Andrew (solo) explores a possible reason that doesn't get much attention…

Listen now

3 years ago · Andrew Smyth and Once for All Delivered

X Threads Documenting Prevalence of Female Deacons in the PCA
https://x.com/FrankCapraJr/status/1887164813316395228

Jon Harris interview with David Edgington on White Knights and Reviling Wives

Data on Women’s Divorce Initiation and Political Leanings

This article continues the Peter Bell/Sons of Patriarchy saga. If you’re new to it, you’ll probably want to read this, this, and this first.

Another week, another apostate uncritically interviewed (this time Eric Skwarczynski of the Preacher Boys podcast, who started out opposing abuse among the IFB but has deconstructed). Not only this, but Peter introduced him as one "like-minded." Not a Christian? No problem as long as you're with us in our crusade. Almost like anti-abuse becomes its own religion...

One thing that is interesting about this interview is that Eric at times asks Peter questions and some interesting answers are offered. Around the 45 minute mark Peter says he still holds to "some" of the core Christian tenets (which ones, and which ones are missing?) Around 54:00 Peter admits something that I noted in my article, he conceals his church information to avoid charges of sin.

He also seems to offer two different origin stories of SOP, one around his internship in Washington and another around the Examining Doug Wilson group (the former being around the 18:00 mark and the latter around 49:00).

Many won't like hearing this, but atheism and apostasy are worse than abuse. The latter kills the body, the former kills body and soul in hell. There's no righteousness in an anti-abuse struggle that treats atheism, apostasy, "deconstruction," etc. as acceptable outcomes. There will be many in heaven who abused and were abused. But there will be none who would not have God as their God.

It's been a few days since I released my article "From Such Turn Away!" which is (hopefully) the culmination of my investigation into Bell and SOP. ICYMI:

Once for All Delivered

From Such Turn Away!

In October, I published an article titled Sons of Charlatanry. This came on the heels of the announcement that Peter Bell was launching Sons of Patriarchy, a podcast ostensibly dedicated to exposing abuse surrounding Doug Wilson and his denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Prior to that I and others had investigated Bell …

Read more

a year ago · 7 likes · Andrew Smyth

The article itself has been viewed nearly 2K times. I tagged Peter on X when I initially posted it (and more times since, both from my personal and the @OFADpodcast account). I've also replied with it in Peter's threads. He is yet to acknowledge it or any of its contents.

Meanwhile, he has spent the last few days trying to goad @haymes_joshua into letting him debate @dalepartridge on head coverings on terms under which no one looking to actually have a debate would accept (he could hijack the program with no recourse)

(link to above post)

This seems like a distraction from the serious but well-documented accusations against him as well as a chance to chase clout on conservative platforms. A good way to keep his fans from noticing my article or pushing back on last week's disastrous TNE interview.

(link to above post)

But I also think to myself, "Peter really wants to get on other people's shows all of a sudden, he probably doesn't like what I've said, I'll give him a reasonable chance to come talk to me and clear his name." This has also been ignored.

(link to above post)

Returning to the TNE interview, Peter has experienced some significant pushback on it in the form of YouTube comments (over 2-to-1 comments-to-likes). Some of SOP's fans, it seems, were not pleased with its uncritical promotion of apostasy, LGBT, etc.

UPDATE 3/17/2025: SOP deleted the TNE interview from all platforms last night after unrelated allegations surfaced of workplace abuse by TNE/Tim Whitaker. I have attached some of the most relevant clips from that interview to the footnotes of “From Such Turn Away!”

How are Peter and Co. taking this criticism? Excuses and deflection. For instance, "it's just one episode." In the same way one might say, "it's just a little poison in this gallon of water."

Peter has acknowledged that he does not agree with Tim on transgenderism. OK, better late than never, I guess. He reaffirms Tim's political views. But he doesn't address the doctrinal concerns (apostasy, deconstruction, hell, etc.) at all.

(The disclaimer has not yet appeared that I have seen, and elsewhere Peter has indicated it will in fact not be a retraction, but "developing a statement." Big Eva is never having to say you're sorry. Oh, and Peter says he's still Reformed.)

(link to above post)

To criticisms of platforming Tim at all, Peter blames this on conservatives being unwilling to appear on SOP because of an alleged fear of Doug Wilson and his supporters. Sounds a bit conspiratorial.

But let's say it's true. Is the solution then to uncritically platform heretics, apostates, and progressives? Are there no other options? Like not having episodes when there's no "good" guests available, or not relying entirely on guests for content?

Not only is Peter resorting to cop-out and conspiracy (DW is not nearly so powerful), at no point in any of the comments does Peter admit error or take responsibility. To borrow the preferred anti-abuse language, it's a lot of gaslighting and DARVO.

"I'm sorry I wasn't clear" - an admission of a minor offense or deficiency of the listener's understanding in place of a major offense.
"I'm sorry you resent me" - a non-apology that shifts blame to the listener's attitude.
"Give us some grace" without repentance.
etc.

So apparently it's OK to use all of these abusive and manipulative (or, more properly, sinful in that they are dishonest and unrepentant) tactics as long as one is pulling in some perceived anti-abuse direction? Peter's friends ought to be policing him better.

So, that's where things stand currently. Deafening silence to me, distractions and deflections elsewhere. I still hope and pray that God will grant Peter true repentance, and free any of His sheep caught in Peter's snare. But the picture, for now, remains bleak.

I have a hunch that a lot of the gatekeeping pastors do of each other is an attempt to justify their own quirks/methods/weaknesses. A lot of the books, articles, and advice seem to be things that might work for somebody but shouldn’t be absolutized.

Easy example: "You should spend X hours on each sermon." Well, you might end up in a place where you do 2 or more sermons a week. Some congregations want/need more sophistication and technical knowledge, but some don't. Some guys just work more efficiently than others.

Medium example: "Don't be a pastor if you can do anything else." Sounds pious, but a subtle implication is pastors should have no other skills or interests. This means they'll have a hard time connecting with people, and maybe stay too long when they should do something else.

Hard example: "Pastors shouldn't be political." Some probably shouldn't, but some can and have and do effectively. This can also be used as a cover to avoid hard biblical moral teachings with societal implications, given that politics is usually the application of public morals.

It is here that some of my former fellow Escondidans might jump in and say “But it’s a Venn diagram! They overlap! VanDrunen’s book even has it on the cover!” But while that overlap is claimed, the political is thought about/talked about in an almost exclusively negative way.

In this camp, the church is what matters, the political doesn’t. So even if someone from the camp happens to be politically positioned and active, they’re more or less expected to do so in a disinterested fashion, primarily preserving the American status quo.

Basically, just do whatever it takes to keep politics separate from us. The moment any political activity starts to look assertive in a pro-Christian direction, the hand-wringing begins about kingdom confusion, theology of glory, eschatological expectations, etc.

A good case study in this was Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. He was a friend of WSCAL and would at times even appear on campus. He is a decent and Christian man, but his philosophy of government was basically the “this is fine” burning room meme.

(linked article at WSJ)

You see this particularly illustrated in Sasse’s interactions with and critiques of Donald Trump. Though Sasse’s record was pretty standard GOP, he was particularly critical of Trump, who for whatever else he is is an assertive politician.

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse Blasts Donald Trump (USA Today)

For all his sparring with Trump, Sasse never really offered an alternative, a more Christian and moral set of legislation and priorities. Which would make sense if one doesn’t really believe in the concept of Christian politics. 6/

Sasse’s positive vision was not so much about any particular policy as it was about preservation--get rid of all the division, partisanship, and political obsession, and “heal.” Settle politics down so we don’t have to engage them. He even wrote a book to that effect.

Sasse is emblematic of the Esco2K problem: their brand of Christians in politics will rarely if ever do anything particularly Christian because they fundamentally believe that Christianity and politics don’t go together. Politics is a secular enterprise, keep it separate.

This, by the way, is not only a problem for politics. The Escondido camp has a weak doctrine of vocation (you’ll also hear at WSCAL frequent lambasts of “Christian plumbing” and “Christian baseball”). The church matters, keep everything else separate.

Of course, they can’t maintain this separation consistently. Myopic focus on the church leads to an inevitable misappropriation of churchly things into the world previously kept separate. I’ve talked about this before.

For example, current ecclesiastical wranglings about Christian Nationalism are an attempt to include/exclude particular political programs and ideologies by the use of ecclesiastical power. 11/

You don’t have to look very far to find calls for the church to investigate and discipline people who are orthodox theologically but heterodox politically. You can find many church leaders (including those who normally insist on separation) suddenly taking political stands.

Because, for however we would like to dress it up, the question of Christianity and politics is not one of whether but of which. We are whole people and the Bible prescribes a comprehensive way of life. We will be political, we will think and act politically, but how?

If Christian politics are of a pretended disinterest and neutrality, they will be status quo politics like Sasse’s. Of course, others are fighting against the status quo in the direction of degeneracy and decline, and they have been winning for a long time.

Because another overlooked aspect of modern 2K is that it is a luxury ideology. It works fine when one is able to insulate from the political and its implications. That’s easy if you’re a pastor of a big wealthy church, a professor, or a professional parachurcher.

This is why the New Christian Right/Christian Nationalism/whatever you call it is a (very ideologically broad and diverse) bottom-up movement largely driven by the laity. They can’t avoid the political or its implications.

This is also why the pushback against CN/NCR is largely top-down, from those either benefiting from the status quo or too insulated from it to realize how bad things got while they were reciting and perfecting their luxury ideologies.

“It’s not a luxury ideology, it’s biblical and true!” Open any Reformed works of exegesis and theology from before 1900 and read them (thoroughly and in context on relevant topics). You won’t find modern 2K and it’s insistence on separation there.

Modern 2K is novel, it’s luxury, it’s counterproductive, it’s disconnected from reality. It doesn’t even accomplish its stated goal of keeping the church and political separate. The best time to abandon it was 20 years ago, the second-best time is now.

This is exactly how I stopped being a dispensationalist.

When I was in college I read the Bible for the first time from front-to-back. The cracks began to show as the things I had been told were not only in the Bible but central to biblical belief (pre-trib rapture being one particular standout example) just weren’t in there.

As I sought help to resolve this, dispensationalist sources didn’t help. They generally just doubled down, strawmanned, and lobbed baseless accusations against other views. Kind of like what this Angliss character has taken to doing lately.

On the other hand, Reformed and covenantal sources did have consistent, coherent biblical and historical answers for my doubts and questions.

I grew up in a world where dispensationalism *was* Christianity and to deny the former was basically denying the latter. It made you a liberal and a heretic. It was the only game in town. I never even knew about different views (beyond “they’re bad”) until adulthood.

Thankfully, that world seems to be crumbling. The dispensationalist monopoly is over. I’d love to just see dispensationalism go away, but if they want to survive I might suggest they come up with some better material, an actual case for their truth and relevance.

We don’t discuss this enough. A lot of the advice peddled to pastors and seminarians by professors, authors, influencers, etc. seems focused on how uniquely difficult and terrible pastoral ministry, congregations, and congregants are.

It’s a bit ironic because many of those dispensing this advice (being professors and other things) are not serving in active pastoral ministry and, if they ever have, haven’t for many years. Maybe there’s other reasons for this that haven’t been adequately considered.

Guys often go straight from childhood to Bible college to seminary to ministry. Pastoring might be their first permanent job and, in light of this advice they got along the way, they come in thinking that they’re working harder and suffering more than anyone else.

They probably aren’t, but they don’t know that. They’ve had a victim mentality preinstalled that sets them up for conflict when they have to interface with the real world and real people with real problems. Those who believe they are entitled victims will act the part.

Self-fulfilling prophecies will self-fulfill. If guys come into pastoral ministry expecting to hate it and to struggle mightily with the labor and the people they’re called to serve, there’s a good chance they will hate the ministry, and not persevere in it.

Anecdotally, as someone who came into ministry as a second career, while pastoring certainly has unique challenges, they’re not on the whole greater or more difficult than the challenges I faced elsewhere. Some stuff is hard, some isn’t. God is faithful, you get through it.

Don’t heed the advice of those who peddle failure as success, normalcy as difficulty, mere competence as heroism, and resentment and bitterness as regular features of faithful shepherding. “Godliness with contentment is great gain.”

Of course those who most benefit from accreditation will present the rosiest view of it, even invoking it as a marker of “true” education. heidelblog.net/2024/07/educat…

I did a deep dive about a year ago into the problems with ATS accreditation particularly: how it invites doctrinal compromise, how it prioritizes the interests of academia over the church, and how it furthers a DEI agenda.

I haven’t looked as deeply into regional accreditation, but from the little I’ve seen, because these bodies accredit all kinds of schools, they are even more deeply captured by godless ideology than ATS.

Leaning on something like accrediting NGOs to be a marker of good schools vs. bad schools (or, to use Clark’s own language, true vs. false) is a terminal case of failure to recognize what time it is.

For those who don’t want to sit through a whole hour of me talking about the problems with ATS accreditation, let me give you some highlights.

ATS lists diversity as its #1 core value. Before “Quality and Improvement” (#2), “Collegiality” (#3), and “Leadership” (#4). ats.edu/About-ATS

The ATS Standards of Accreditation impose many diversity-related requirements on schools as a demand of “integrity.”ats.edu/files/gallerie…

MDivs are to require engagement with other religious traditions, and preparation for “the multifaith and multicultural nature of the societies in which students may serve...”

Faculty must be demographically diverse, must be granted freedom of inquiry, and students’ diversities must be respected.

The ATS has a Women in Leadership initiative that seeks to increase the number of women who serve as faculty and administration in theological education.

Women in Leadership https://www.ats.edu/Women-in-Leadership

Also, in their Policy Guidelines, ATS expects member schools to appoint women as faculty, as well as minorities and young faculty. ats.edu/files/gallerie…

Also in Policy Guidelines, ATS requires schools to protect academic freedom of professors when confessional and ecclesiastical disputes arise. Might explain how seminaries seem to circle the wagons when their faculty come under fire for their teachings.

ATS Policy Guidelines also prohibit churches from accrediting schools. It seems they do not think anyone but peer academics are up to the task.

Ask yourself: what is this organization doing that makes it (or something like it) a prerequisite for “true” theological education? It creates bureaucracies, it creates the preconditions for doctrinal and mission drift, it creates jobs for preferred classes, it protects heterodox professors from the consequences of their actions, but none of this makes theological education “true” or even better. From where I’m standing, ATS looks like another tentacle of the regime reaching into the church.

A harsh reality that many in Christian institutions don't understand is that these days most people risk losing their jobs, kids, freedom, etc. by engaging truthfully in public discourse. And there's lots of people working overtime to make sure they lose all those things.

I don't operate anonymously but at this point I don't blame anyone who does. There's a long history of important and meaningful pseudonymous discourse when the stakes were much lower even than they are now. If you want to "real talk," know what people really face.

Now, to the anons, don't use your anonymity as a cover for evil. Just because your identity and motives are not known to your fellow man does not mean they are not known to God. You have an audience of One.

But within those parameters, carry on.