The Westminster Tradition vs. DeYoung and the Gospel Coalition, Part I
A Series on Westminster Chapter 23 and a Response to Kevin DeYoung
PCUSA GA 1815 on consequences of mail on Sunday “A free government, therefore, in which existing laws have lost their efficacy, presents to view a government in which the supreme authority lies prostrate under the feet of the lawless and disobedient. In producing the most unhappy state of society, the first efforts of iniquity will be exerted to silence those laws and regulations which most powerfully counteract the depraved feelings of the heart, which tend to strengthen the moral sense, and which remind men of their accountability to that tribunal from which there is no appeal. If, therefore, the main spring of moral instruction, and moral feeling, is found in a due sanctification of the Sabbath, to destroy its influence to them so irksome, will be the first efforts of the sons of Belial!”
Introduction
Let me begin this article by saying that I find it most intriguing and somewhat humorous that any kind of clarity on true Confessionalism would ever come from the Gospel Coalition. I also find it amusing that the Gospel Coalition would write something about the need for radical separation between the church and the state. The Gospel Coalition has promoted the current state’s ungodly ideology on numerous occasions on matters of race. They have also regularly promoted the state’s ungodly ideology on sexuality and gender. TGC seems to constantly be doing 1 of 3 things. 1. They are promoting a loose Confessionalism which is endlessly eroding historic convictions. This was Gospel Coalition leader Tim Keller’s legacy in the PCA. 2. They are regularly promoting the godless political ideology of the leftist state to the church. 3. They are regularly imposing these ideologies on the sphere of the church through a multiplicity of topics and articles. Gospel Coalition in many ways has become a parrot of the leftist deep state with Christian lingo.
Let me qualify that I do not believe that it would be fair to describe Kevin DeYoung as embodying the things stated. However, due to the fact that He is writing for an institution that is regularly eroding Confessionalism and imposing the current state’s ideology in the church….it makes him in some way a co- conspirator with what I like to call the social gospel coalition. I wish that men like DeYoung would have nothing to do with TGC, as I believe they are better than that. The Gospel coalition in no way has credibility to tell the reformed church what it means to be Confessional, nor what it means to observe distinctions between church and state, nor what it means for the religious lines not to be blurred amongst the spheres. They are constantly blurring the lines and constantly presenting leftist statist ideology and spiritualities that the spiritual sphere (church) must embrace and employ.
London and Philadelphia irreconcilable?
That said, I will now seek to show how the arguments in DeYoung’s article about the Westminster Standards in America making a case for a secularized civil sphere (voluntarism) are both incorrect and seriously wanting. DeYoung starts the article by claiming that American Presbyterians must choose either what is proposed in the original standards on the magistrate or what was later changed about the magistrate in 1788. Said another way, DeYoung is telling us that we cannot be establishmentarian if we subscribe to our current standards. One cannot see (according to DeYoung) commonality (about the magistrates’ role) and connection to chapter 23 (from original and amended ch. 23) but rather they must see antithetical contrast. He says, “As new debates about the proper relationship between church and state continue to multiply, it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”
“In short, what the Westminster Assembly confessed in London about the civil magistrate in 1646 is not what American Presbyterians confessed in Philadelphia in 1788. The two versions of the Westminster Confession don’t say the same thing, and they cannot both be right.”
Young has pitted London against Philadelphia and is calling you to claim one and disown the other (when it comes to things discussed here). He also claims this choice about officers in the PCA as to how they are to interact with the magisterial changes of 23. “He is, instead, affirming a different view of the civil magistrate that does much more to restrict the magistrate’s power and gives members of the commonwealth much more freedom and liberty in the realm of religion (even to the point of practicing no religion at all).”
Notice that DeYoung not only says that the original and adjusted standards are incompatible, but he also says that in the American standards inevitably leads to the practicing of no religion of any kind in the magisterial realm. Simply put, DeYoung believes that the American Standards allow and or enshrine idolatrous pluralism in the civil sphere and that this is the Biblical confessional position of the American Presbyterian. The official position (via DeYoung) of the American standards is voluntarism, which is an irreligious pluralistic state.
Two Kingdoms leads to no Christ in the civil sphere?
DeYoung then develops his argument by citing that both the original and adjusted standards share the classic two kingdom view by citing Divine Gillespie. What is ironic about DeYoung citing Gillespie as one who helped shaped these two Kingdom distinctions is in not showing how Gillespie spoke about the civil realm in very religious and Christocentric ways. Men like DeYoung thoroughly enjoy 2K theology, but consistently reject how the men who codified these teachings spoke of Christ’s Lordship in the civil realm. Ironically, men like DeYoung will often use 2K theology to dismantle national conceptions of religion. Said another way, some Presbyterians use the 2K theology from the Divines to assault the parts of their theology that they don’t care for. I find it appropriate to show how Gillespie understood distinctions between church and state. Divine George Gillespie wrote,
“Things immutable and common to all nations are the laws concerning moral trespass, sins against the moral law, as murder, adultery, theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, striking of parents. Now that the Christian magistrate is bound to observe judicial laws of Moses, which he appoints the punishments of sins against the moral law, he proves by these reasons. 1. If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the magistrate to appoint what punishments he pleases. But this is not arbitrary to him for he is the minister of God (Rom. 13:4) and the judgement is the Lord’s (Deut 1:7; 2 Chron 19:6). And if the magistrate is the keeper of both tables, he must keep them in such a manner as God has delivered them to him.
“If God would have the moral law transmitted from the Jewish magistrate to the Christian magistrate: there being the same reason of immutability in punishments, which is in the offenses.”
The distinction of realms in 23:3 in both the original and adjusted standards were written by men like Gillespie who believe that the magistrate is to enforce the first and second tables of the law as set forth in scripture. This point is important because distinction of realms in the Westminster language did not mean and can never mean separation of religion and the first table from any of the two realms. The Reformed separation of realms that both the original and amended WCF 23 affirm never intended or allowed for any religious separation of Christ from the civil realm. This would go against the entirety of the standards, not simply chapter 23 (more on that later).
Interestingly, DeYoung states that this two kingdom distinction that was the language of the Standards and the thinking of Gillespie was not the general thinking of the Assembly.
“Gillespie’s views on the civil magistrate, if not entirely convincing to every member of the Assembly, represented the kind of two-kingdom thinking that had been dominant in Scotland for three-quarters of a century.”
DeYoung in saying this (it seems) is attempting to show that the two kingdoms language in the original standards was arguing for a more radical separation (of religion and the state) amongst realms, which would not be fully known and embraced until the American changes. DeYoung is trying to convince us that two Kingdoms in the 1640s is fully blossomed in the late 1700s (I have seen quite a few Presbyterians claim that a neutral secular state must be attributed to the Scots). DG Hart’s book Seeking a Better Country and Calvinism: A History is a good example of this attempt. DeYoung is showing a contrast in the language of the original and adjusted ch. 23, but he is inferring a continuity in the sense that America in their adjusted language truly embodied the intention of men like Gillespie and other Scots. I believe that men like DeYoung believe that their principles on the spheres truly captures the heart of Scottish theology, and I believe that they are absolutely far from correct. Men like DeYoung allege that the Scottish spirituality of the church was shackled by the times but made full by later American generations.
Furthermore, the essential work being referenced (by DeYoung) of Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, is a book which uses language on the magistrate that actually shows up in the Westminster standards (contra DeYoung’s claim that Gillespie’s 2K views were not held in the assembly widely). Consider 23:1 which says, “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.” Consider Gillespie in the aforementioned book, where he says, “Both magistracy and ministry are appointed for the glory of God as supreme and for the good of men as the subordinate end. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary each to the other; magistracy strengthens ministry and ministry strengthens magistracy.” Gillespie’s 2K views were very much held widely in the Standards and reflected well in the language of the standards. Consequently, the assembly saw 2K theology to go hand in hand with seeing the orthodox religious magistrate as essential for the ministry of the church.
“If it be objected, how can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged, that the civil magistrate ought to take special care of religion, of the conservation and purgation thereof, of the abolishing idolatry, and superstition and out to be custos utriusque tabuloc, of the first as well the second table? I answer that magistrates are appointed not only for civil policy but for the conservation and purgation of religion, as it expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, before cited, we must firmly believe as a most undoubted truth. But when divines make the object of magistracy to be only such things as belong to this life and to human society, they do not mean the object of the magistrates care (as if he were not able to take care of religion), but the object of his operation. The magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys nor the dispensation of church censures; he can but punish the external man with external punishments.”
DeYoung seems to be trying to show us how the American Standards have truly captured the Scottish 2K to the end that we can be truly free to do ministry; and yet we can see here that the Scots figured out long ago how the magistrate can be religiously involved and yet not disrupting the Jure Divino of the church. DeYoung and men like him are spending much time seeking how we can truly and purely be about the spirituality of the church by virtually secularizing the state. However, men like Gillespie have already worked this dilemma out and showed us theologically how we are to be Christocentric in both realms without losing one or the other.
While DeYoung concedes that Gillespie would hold to a religious conception in the state, it seems that he believes that the Scottish two kingdom language in the standards, if consistently worked out, demands for a total removal of religion from one realm, namely the state. He at times in his teaching will note the existence of some anti-establishmentarian Scots (in history, some seceders at times were inclined to voluntarism) to vindicate this point (anti-establishment Scots were never a good thing vindicated by the church). Nonetheless, this seems a bit revisionist, as it assumes that the men who confessionally codified 2K thinking were unable to hold it fully because of their inabilities. DeYoung is alleging that the Scots gave us 2K and yet it was the Americans that truly embody 2K (this kind of language was said to be used by those who attended a DeYoung a speech at the 2024 GA).
The Divines descendants in America dropped their political theology?
DeYoung then goes on to say,
“Until recently, most Reformed Christians, especially in America, would have quickly dismissed the historic text as tragically mistaken and embraced the 1788 revision as obviously correct. In recent years, however, as republican virtue has waned and as the democratic-liberal consensus has broken down, some Christians have wondered anew if the magisterial reformers and the confessional documents from the 16th and 17th centuries may have been right after all.”
Here, DeYoung attempts to show the grand divergence between the original and adjusted ch. 23 in the Standards. He claims that men who see national religion and the establishment principle and or the first table as a civil matter as those who have such views due to the decline of the Republican Party. This is quite clever I admit as it attributes reformed retrieval of the establishment principle to be attributable merely to the decline of the red party. Said another way, a bad political sphere is what has led us to embrace the establishment Principle. Our Confessionalism is allegedly culturally driven. What DeYoung does not understand is that it is exegesis and Confessionalism that is driving the revival of the establishment principle, and in actuality it is his circle of thinkers that is being driven by the cultural ethos. Religious pluralism is the tide that we swim in in all of life and DeYoung’s sentiments seem like nothing more than a Christian anesthetized version of that tide.
Furthermore, in saying this, he claims that most reformed Christians until recently believed that the original standards were mistaken. Interestingly, DeYoung shows no proof of this at all, but merely states it as fact and then targets the reformed world’s current whipping boy, Stephen Wolfe. To prove DeYoung wrong on this point, let me state the following.
Firstly, the ARP reformed denomination chapter 23 in the WCF reads the following.
“The civil magistrate may not assume to himself administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet, as the gospel revelation lays indispensable obligations upon all classes of peoples who are favored with it, magistrates as such, are bound to execute their respective offices in a subserviency thereunto, administering government on Christian principles, and ruling in the fear of God, according to the directions of his word; as those who shall give an account to the Lord Jesus, whom God has appointed to be judge of the world. Hence magistrates, as such in a Christian country, are bound to promote the Christian religion, as the most valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil rights; and do not imply an interference in the policy of the church, which is the free and independent kingdom of the Redeemer, nor an assumption of dominion over conscience.”
Notice how the reformed in America did not feel that the original standards were in error when they believed that Christianity was to be the public standard for a nation and to be that which explicitly governs a nation nationally.
Furthermore, the Heritage Reformed Congregations and the RPCNA have not changed WCF 23 in any way. The RPCNA testimony in America says the following about the magistrate.
“God has assigned to people, both individually and collectively, the responsibility for establishing and maintaining civil government, and the people are accountable to Jesus Christ for the proper exercise of this responsibility.”
Deut. 1:13-14; Deut. 17:15; 1 Sam. 8: 22; 2 Sam. 5:3; Hos. 8:1, 4; Eccl. 10: 16-17.
“Every nation ought to recognize the Divine institution of civil government, the sovereignty of God exercised by Jesus Christ, and its duty to rule the civil affairs of men in accordance with the will of God. It should enter into covenant with Christ and serve to advance His Kingdom on earth. The negligence of civil government in any of these particulars is sinful, makes the nation liable to the wrath of God, and threatens the continued existence of the government and nation.”
“We reject the view that nations have no corporate responsibility for acknowledging and obeying Christ.”
“It is the duty of every Christian citizen to labor and pray for his nation’s official and explicit recognition of the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Preserver and Ruler of nations, and for the conduct of all governmental affairs in harmony with the written Word of God.”
1 Tim. 2:1-2; Phil. 2:9-10; Acts 2:1-39; Ps. 2:8-12; Esther 4:14.
“We deny that constitutional recognition of Jesus Christ means union of church and state.”
“We reject the teaching that Christians should not seek the establishment of Christian civil government.”
“The Christian, when such action involves no disloyalty to Christ, ought to be involved in the selection of and to vote for civil rulers who fear God, love truth and justice, hate evil, and are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government.”
Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:18; 2 Sam. 23:3; Rom. 13:3.
DeYoung later insinuates that these groups above are somewhat irrelevant anomalies that cannot be said to represent the story of Presbyterian thinking in the US.
DeYoung believes that the changes amongst some reformed denominations (on the magistrate) means that all reformed people in America believe that the state protected and promoted religion in chapter 23 was a false premise.
This is incorrect for multiple reasons. 1. Reformed denominations have either maintained the original wording of 23 or restated it in a way which reflects the establishment principle. 2. Many reformed pastors believe that the standards should not have been changed in chapter 23. 3. Many reformed pastors believed that the original language and the changed language are compatible. 4. DeYoung has not proved that this different wording necessarily means a radical departure from a religious conception of Christ and His whole law in the state. To this last point, I believe this reflects DeYoung and his circle’s views more than the standards themselves. We often see what we want to see.
DeYoung’s PCA and OPC anti-establishmentarian circles hardly means that an entire country of reformed people have believed that the original concepts in the standards in chapter 23 were in error simply due to some wording changes in ch. 23.
Image Credit: St Giles’ High Kirk, Edinburgh, Scotland