Six Answers (and a Question) for Kevin DeYoung

The civil government must be moral

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.