A Series on Westminster Chapter 23 and a Response to Kevin DeYoung
DeYoung then proceeds to subtly discredit the original position by saying the following. “The Westminster divines thought about the relationship between church and state in the way most Reformed Christians did at the time.”
“Given this broad consensus about magistrate’s role, it’s little wonder that when the Westminster Assembly met on September 10, 1644, to investigate the sins that could be provoking God’s wrath in the current conflict with the king.”
His point here it seems is that the Westminster Assembly’s position on the magistrate was not grounded in exegesis, but rather it simply was the product of the reformed climate of the day. This point is quite humorous, as it infers that the Westminster theology was a theology that was nothing more than various expressions of the times (when it comes to societal/magisterial content). They merely gathered to just codify the norms of the reformed world (sarcasm). This is quite interesting as the Westminster views on the Sabbath, sacraments, worship, Christian liberty and freedom of conscience, holy days, polity, atonement (definite), covenants, election, decree, and the law of God would differ significantly from other reformed countries in various ways. The Westminster view of the magistrate, while reflecting established religion in general, was quite different from other reformed countries. Westminster codified the civil realm in a manner that differed from Catholic countries, Lutheran countries, the Dutch, and countries governed by Prelacy. It was in some ways a unique expression of the establishment principle, rather than a less than thoughtful regurgitation of the norm.
The Westminster Standards indeed express broader reformed views, but much of their views express a divergence from the broader reformed world. Said another way, the Standards give a precision in various reformed views that is unique and not the status quo. Furthermore, the Westminster views, like many others, on the magistrate were not mere expressions of the times. This can be proven by how different Scotland was politically from the Netherlands, Germany, and England due to it being the one place where the Westminster Standards were accepted nationally by the government. DeYoung is in error in insinuating that the Westminster Standards magisterial views were less than exegetical and nothing more than generic reflections of the times. This is part of his and other similar Presbyterians theological power play, namely the narrative that makes the Divines less than exegetes when it comes to Christ Kingdom in matters civil. They were just men of their times waiting for objective men in America to truly discern Biblical government (sarcasm, again).
American language of Chapter 23 makes voluntarism official position?
DeYoung then goes into the language of the 1788 changes and shows how the American tradition radically departed from the establishment principle to voluntarism (more on that later). He says, “In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church: (1) protect the church so its ministry and assemblies aren’t disturbed, (2) give no preference to any denominations of Christians above the rest, (3) ensure no law infringes on the free exercise and free association of Christians, and (4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion. The civil magistrate in the American revision is still accountable to God (note the language of “our common Lord”), but he’s now a “nursing father” (see Isa. 49:23) who provides parental protection for the church to flourish rather than a “a guardian and avenger of both tables of the Law.” The phrase “nursing father” was a common designation for kings and other magistrates, going back centuries in Protestant political thought. The label could encompass many different functions, but the general idea was that the magistrate would have a supportive role to play relative to true religion.” “Moreover, the establishment principle has been removed in favor of the voluntary principle of church membership.” This quote by DeYoung is by far the most troubling.
Notice a few important observations about what DeYoung believes about the American changes to chapter 23. 1. All religions should be freely practiced without any restraint. 2. The state is a nursing father but does not enforce both tables of the law. To nurse merely means positive support. And by positive support, DeYoung means much less than what was meant and understood historically. 3. The state does not have any punitive role when it comes to the expression of false religion. 4. The American changes are promoting the anti-establishment principle and pro voluntary principle. Let me systematically show you how these premises are false.
1. Part of DeYoung’s logic is related to 23:3 language in the American standards, which uses nursing father for the magistrate. The state is no longer one who enforces the first table punitively, but merely is one that acts supportively of the church. Notice something very important about the two standards. 23:3 American says, “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.” The citation is Isaiah 49:23. In WCF 23:3 in the original says, “yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemes and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline pre-vented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.” The citation for this is also Isaiah 49:23. Here is a simple question. If the American version using nursing father (and Is. 49:23) means that this is promoting a non-religious state that does not enforce both tables of the law, then why would they use the same language and proof text of the original standards that was used to ground the magistrates’ enforcement of both tables? Clearly, DeYoung does not understand what nursing father means in the reformed world of the Divines or in general. If the American version was seeking to radically diverge from the original, then they would not have used the same proof text used for magistrates punishing blasphemy. Nursing father texts were used in the original to make a case for a state that punitively enforced both tables of the law, and the American adjusted version used the same proof text for the magistrate. Said simply, Isaiah 49:23 was used by the original standards to biblically argue for a first table enforcing magistrate, using the same proof text to make a case for a neutral magistrate makes absolutely no sense.
2. The term nursing father was never used by the reformed, either in Europe or America, to speak about the voluntary principle or principled pluralism, but rather it was used regularly so speak to some version of state established religion. If the Americans were seeking to enshrine voluntarism, they would have used another word to describe the magistrate. Consider Calvin commenting on Isaiah 49:23 to express the reformed understanding of the language in Isaiah of nursing father.
“This took place when the Lord revealed himself to the whole world by the Gospel; for mighty kings and princes not only submitted to the yoke of Christ, but likewise contributed their riches to raise up and maintain the Church of Christ, so as to be her guardians and defenders. Nothing is said here about enriching the houses of those who, under false pretences, hold themselves out to be ministers of the Church, (which was nothing else than to corrupt the Church of God and to destroy it by deadly poison,) but about removing superstitions and putting an end to all wicked idolatry, about advancing the kingdom of Christ and maintaining purity of doctrine, about purging scandals and cleansing from the filth that corrupts piety and impairs the lustre of the Divine majesty.”
Note how Calvin speaks of nursing father speaking to Kings who are submitted to Christ in their office, and also how he says that the magistrate is a defender (not just supporter) of the church. The reformed use nursing father language to argue for an explicitly Christian state. Furthermore, notice how Calvin sees the state as nursing father to demand it to punitively remove error and idolatry. DeYoung is quite profound in many ways, however his claim that any Presbyterian used Isaiah 49:23 to make a case for a secular state that does not enforce both tables of the law is quite embarrassing. Nursing father is a word for the national establishment of religion, not voluntarism. Consequently, the American changes used language that showed continuity rather than stark divergence from the original. Note the following questions and answers from a Puritan Minister, which shows how nursing father was understood by the reformed world.
“It is promised, that in the times of the Gospel, Kings shall be nursing fathers, and Queens nursing mothers to the Church. Isa. 49.23. But this they cannot be, except they have power, & put forth their pow∣er in matters of religion, which do especially concern the Church, as well as in Civil matters. Except. 1. Some answer, that Kings and Queens are promised to be nursing fathers, and nursing mothers to the Church, in that being converted, they shall hold forth the grace of Christ unto others. Reply, But so may any of the Saints do, though of the meanest rank and poorest condition: it’s true, the examples of Kings and Queens are more conspicuous, and more taken notice of; but to be nursing fathers and nursing mothers, imports a power and a care to cherish and maintain, to protect and defend, which is much more than to hold forth by example. Except. 2. Some grant that protection and defense is implied in the titles of nursing fathers, and nursing mothers; but this protection and defense, they will have meant only in outward and civil things, not in things belonging to Religion. Reply. But 1. To be nursing fathers, and nursing mothers to the Church, as the Church; must needs imply a protection and defense of the Church in matters of Religion; for it is Religion which gives being to the Church, and by Religion it is that the Church doth differ from the Civil State or Common-wealth.”
The quotes speak for themselves that the language of nursing father is the language of establishment. Consider an American Presbyterian speaking to how this term was understood by the Westminster world.
“To be a nursing father implies protection…We are informed in the ninth chapter of second Kings, that Jehu was anointed to cut off the idolatrous house of Ahab. In the tenth chapter we are told, verse 25th, that he destroyed the worshippers of Baal; and in the 30th verse, God commends him for doing so…And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that his father had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her, he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove and Ada destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. And in this, we are told, “He did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.”1
Note how Wylie sees the language of nursing father as set forth in scripture as protection via the punitive.
3. DeYoung makes far too much about the changes made in 23:3 and a few other places, and ignores the many other places that show that the American standards consistently support the establishment principle. The issue with men like DeYoung and their sensationalistic view of changes in 23:3 is that they seem to overlook how much established religion language embeds the Standards.
A. In WCF 21:8 on the Sabbath, the citation for the magistrate is most telling. 21:8 says, “this Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.” The citation for Sabbath observance is Nehemiah 13:15-19, 21,22 where Nehemiah as a civil magistrate is enforcing the Sabbath punitively. Thus showing that the American standards as adjusted confess a magistrate who indeed enforces Christianity in public and first table matters.
B. In 22:6 the Westminster confession is speaking on biblical oaths. Point 6 says, “It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:n and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.” The citation for oaths is Isaiah 19:21 which reads, Isa. 19:21. “And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.” Isaiah 19:21 is the choice puritan text to argue for national covenanting, as it shows a gentile nation making a national oath with Christ. Hobbyhorse proof texts for national covenants would not remain in a voluntarist Confession. The American standards as amended commends national oaths to Christ.
C. In WCF 23:2 it says, “It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:1 in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth.” The citation for a Christian Magistrate is Psalms 2:10-12 which speaks about political figures paying homage to Christ in their particular offices. Psalms 2 is another choice reformed text to speak on national religion and a first table enforcing magistrate. The American standards commend a magistrate who operates in his office in explicit homage to Christ.
D. In WCF 21:5 it says this about the moral law which 19:5 it says, “the moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;1 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.” It is quite intriguing that DeYoung would make a case for the American standards changing the original standards view that the magistrate was to enforce both tables of the law when 19:5 still reads that all men are bound to the whole moral law, saved or unsaved, and that they are to see the law in a theocentric not merely categorical manner. Meaning that all are to see the laws of God as reflective of God Himself as the lawgiver. Would that include magistrates and their citizens? If the American standards say that all people are under all of God’s 10 commands (see 19:1-4), then how could the changes in 23:3 be saying that magistrates do not enforce the first table in society?
E. DeYoung quickly shows that “tolerating false religion” was removed from 109, but then neglects to show how 108 remains unchanged in the Westminster Standards. The end of WLC 108 reads, “as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship;10 and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.” The American standards call for the removal of idolatry monuments in each one’s place and calling (OT Kings doing so in the proof text). I would like to ask DeYoung if he believes that the father or the magistrate is some exception to this confessional point. Does the American standards call for all to remove idolatry in their places and callings, include the magistrate? If so, then how could you read 23:3 to call for a magistrate who ignores WLC 108? Does the new 23:3 cancel WLC 108? Our standards as they remain call for magistrates to remove monuments of idolatry in their magisterial place and calling.
F. WLC 118 says, “why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?” Meaning that the American standards see magistrates (other superiors) as those who are to be keepers of the first table of the law, namely the Sabbath. The citation is Nehemiah in chapter 13 acting punitively for Sabbath breaking. According to DeYoung the new standards in 23 call for a non-punitive first table and yet the same confession cites a punitive first table magistrate as the model magistrate.
G. In WLC 129 on the 5th commandment, it says, “what is required of superiors towards their inferiors? A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.” Notice how superiors of all kinds are called by God to provide things necessary for soul and body to those they oversee. This means the American Standards as they remain call for a magistrate that uses its power to be about matters sacred, matters religious. The American Standards confess that the civil realm is to positively act indirectly unto spiritual ends.
H. WCF 23:1 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; 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.” Notice a few things here. Firstly, that Christ is said to be the King of the whole world (not just the church) and that magistrates are under His authority. This is classic Mediatorial Kingship Covenanter language. Secondly, that they are under Him for His glory first and the public good next. According to DeYoung’s logic, these two distinct categories should be one, meaning the magistrate glorifies God by being about second table matters pertaining to public good. However, the magistrate is under the King for two things, for something doxological and first table oriented AND for horizontal second table order. Furthermore, the encouragement of virtue and good AND the punishment of evil speaks to how the magistrate is to be one who both promotes the 10 commandments and avenges when they are broken. 23:1 which speaks about the magistrate’s positive and punitive role in things both doxological and horizontal must be kept in mind when we read 23:3 about what it means to be a nursing father. The avenger language of 23:1 compliments and frames the nursing father language in 23.
I. WLC 191 (present standards) says, “the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,7 purged from corruption,8 countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:9 that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted.” Notice a few things. Firstly, that the magistrate is called to countenance and maintain what specifically? It says that they are to countenance and maintain the churches gospel officers and ordinances and the purging of corruptions. DeYoung can speculate all he wants about 23:3 but must reckon with 191. The magistrate’s power is to maintain things related to the churches ministry and ordinances, which speaks to His role in matters about religion. The magistrate is also said to be one who maintains and countenances that these ordinances be, “purged from corruption, which speaks to his punitive role in first table matters. The magistrate according to 191 has a purging role about firs table matters. Furthermore, the results of the magistrate’s countenance of first table matters punitively is stated subsequently. After the 191 says countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate, it says, “that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed.” Did you catch that?
The magistrate’s activity about first table matters is to the end that first able ordinances be purely dispensed. How DeYoung could deduce from our current standards that this calls for a first table neutered magistrate who is voluntarist is quite astonishing. The American standards consistently express the religious, Christo-subservient, first table preoccupied magistrate of the original standards. DeYoung’s understanding of 23:3 is either doing one of two things. It is expressing great ignorance of how the original wording of 23:3 is throughout all the standards, or it is expressing great dishonesty about what 23:3’s changes actually mean. Either way, DeYoung’s treatment of 23:3 is an outright contradiction to what much of the American standards clearly still say, namely that the magistrate is to be a religious keeper of both tables of the law unto Christ and that voluntarism is false and Confessionally untenable. Lastly, we must consider one more thing in the confession which counters DeYoung. 23:3 says, “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.” The new 23:3 does not codify voluntarism or any kind of secular principled pluralism, rather it codifies pan Protestant Christendom. Note how it says that magistrates are to protect the church of our common Lord. Which is to say that in America, the church, and the magistrate have a common Lord, as opposed to DeYoung’s claim that post 1788 it is the church alone which has the Lord while the state remains categorically and neutral. Furthermore, the magistrate is to make, “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.” Notice that the protection of the State for religions is said to be only for Christians of different denominations.
There is no hint of 23:3 calling for a secular magistrate to protect idolatry and blasphemy. The citation for this sentence is Psalms 105:15 which states, “He permitted no one to do them wrong; Yes, He rebuked kings for their sakes,15 Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm.” The magistrate thus is said to have punitive power to protect true Christians in spite of their denominational differences. It is at this point where a DeYoung type will note the next sentence which says, “it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever.” They assert that WCF 23:3 is confessing that false religions be publicly protected. This would contradict much of the rest of the standards, which I have extensively shown. Furthermore, infidelity is being spoken of in the context of a conversation about different Christians practicing their faith. The entire convo in 23:3 is about the magistrate protecting the Christians who have a common Lord. The issue at hand is a person who allegedly is practicing Christianity wrongly as an individual. Magistrates should not allow violence on its citizens for their personal religious errors and or beliefs. Said another way, Presbyterians should not jail a baptist for not baptizing his children nor allow that Baptist assault Presbyterians for paedo baptism. This is hardly a case for secular or neutral magistrate that defends religious anarchy.
4. Let us now consider the other quote specifically that DeYoung makes about voluntarism as the American Standards position. “Moreover, the establishment principle has been removed in favor of the voluntary principle of church membership.” Is it possible that the American Standards could embrace their historic roots and voluntarism? While I admit that our standards have softened elements of the magistrate’s religious role, can we truly say that the changes are professing voluntarism as the Confessional view? Let me say that there is no place in our standards where voluntarism is professed. Voluntarism is a position that was historically embraced solely by heretics and sects. James Bannerman says in his work the Church of Christ, “The theory now commonly known as Voluntaryism— though the name is by no means a very happily chosen or appropriate one—did not make its appearance in any definite shape before the period of the Reformation, although views of a kindred sort were propounded by some of the Donatists in the fifth century. In Protestant Christendom, doctrines which would now be described as Voluntary were first broached by the Anabaptists in Germany in the sixteenth century. They were taken up largely by the Socinians, the party known as the Libertines in England and Holland, and by many of the sectaries during the Commonwealth.” Does DeYoung believe that the Presbyterians in America in their changes have taken an official position that was commonly expressed historically by heretical sects? Did the American Presbyterians change their magisterial views to coincide with heretics? Furthermore, in the reformed Confessional world, the voluntary theory makes the separation of church and state impossible. If DeYoung’s goal is to make a case for how voluntarism is essential for the maintenance of the Scottish 2K teaching, then he is quite mistaken. Bannerman says, “If within the borders of the same community they are not allied together in friendship to a certain extent, they will be inevitably forced into the attitude of mutual antagonism. The fundamental maxim of the Voluntary theory, that ‘the state, as the state, has nothing to do with religion, is a principle which, from the very necessity of the case, can never be realized. The state must have to do with religion, and that in the way, if not of friendly co-operation and consent, then of hostility and opposition. If it were possible for the state in any country to disown all connection of a friendly kind with religion, natural and revealed, the inevitable tendency would be, either for the want of religion, to destroy the state, or for the state to destroy religion.” The Reformed tradition in general (DeYoung can produce some examples of some reformed voluntarists that would not reflect the broad consensus) knows that voluntarism is detrimental to the essential teaching on distinct realms. A secular, non-religious state will never understand its limits nor understand the church’s jurisdiction; the only way the church can operate unto Christ freely is by a state that is subject and limited by Christ explicitly. The idea that Americans have embraced a principle which they have deemed to be detrimental to their 2K theology is comical. To be pro voluntarist is necessarily to be anti 2K.
Image Credit: Unsplash
The real issue here is how much of WCF 23 can be supported by the Scriptures. I have no doubt that the Devines used the Scriptures to determine what to write. But three points should be made here. First, if we can learn nothing from those Scriptures outside of what the Westminster Standards say, then again, the Westminster Standards are put on a pedestal that elevates it too close to the Scriptures. In essence, the Westminster Standards become a vicar of the Scriptures because then we must go through the Westminster Standards to understand the Scriptures.
Second, a problem here isn’t that Westminster Devines didn’t exegete the Scriptures before writing what they did. The problem here is that we only see the results of that exegesis, not the process itself.
Third, it is not only conceivable that the times could have influenced how the Devines exegeted the Scriptures, it should be expected that such was the case. That doesn’t necessarily result in a strict uniformity with what any of the other Reformers said. But it does imply a more abstract and general similarity with not just what the other Reformers said, but with the times themselves. And there is no doubt that is what we see in WCF 23:3. For when we look at the Scriptures used to support that part of the Confession, the Scriptures used to support the notion that the Civil Magistrates must suppress blasphemies and heresies come solely from the Old Testament. And here we should note that Israel had a unique relationship with God during Old Testament times that no nation has or will ever have during New Testament times.
In the New Testament, blasphemies and heresies inside the Church were met with Church discipline. And that the last resort in discipline simply resulted in the casting out of any professed believer who held them out into society without having the protection and resources provided to them by the Church. Blasphemies and heresies held by unbelievers in society were met with preaching and evangelism. For those who repented of those blasphemies and heresies by believing what was preached were then accepted into the Church. And thus from the Church perspective, there is a sharp distinction between society and the Church. Unbelievers and believers were assigned to society while believers also belonged to the Church. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests that the government should punish unbelievers for their beliefs or words spoken privately or publicly. Rather, the New Testament tells us to move on when people don’t accept our preaching. The New Testament warns us against ‘lording it over’ others as the heathen do. The New Testament tells us not to withdraw from the sexually immoral who are unbelievers as we are to shun the sexually immoral who profess to believe (I Cor 5). To have the government punish blasphemers and heretics would often result in the government withdrawing unbelievers from our presence. And if that happens, who is there to preach to them? Here, we might even reference WCF 23:4 in asking if infidelity or differences in religion does not invalidate the Civil Magistrate’s position, why should it do the same citizens in society?
There is a compulsion in the position of those who want the government to enforce the two tables of the Law. Perhaps there is more than one reason for the compulsion. Perhaps one reason is to witness to the world by creating a ‘city on the hill.’ Unfortunately, when the Puritans tried to do so, they greatly tarnished the reputation of the Gospel by abusing others in the New World as how others had abused them in the old one. In creating that ‘city,’ they showed that they could only love those who loved them and agreed with them. Jesus’s standard for how we are to love is to love and bless our enemies.
But perhaps another reason for the compulsion is a fear of being with those whose lifestyles and beliefs differ too greatly from their own. And rather than preaching the Gospel and evangelizing, they might prefer that the government enforce laws that limit how different one’s neighbors or fellow citizens can be. And if that is the case, using the Civil Magistrate to enforce Church laws would be the exact opposite of what is needed to fulfill the Great Commission.