Kevin DeYoung: The Case For A Christian Sensibility

Political topics change fast. Political opinions can change even faster. Finding a commentator that is able to consistently see the big picture is nearly impossible. There are some men who can appear to be right, even prophetic, yet fail to see the larger perspective. This phenomenon is most obvious when a commentator asks good questions, yet fails to answer them in any meaningful capacity.

In March of 2021, about a year after the start of Covid-19, Kevin DeYoung asked the question. There were many questions that could have been asked, but this was the only question that people still do not have an answer to. Why is it that by knowing what someone thinks about, say, mask wearing that you probably have a pretty good idea what they think about Christian Nationalism and systemic racism? ¹ Good question. Now, how does he answer?

DeYoung starts his answer to this question with some basics: “America is suffering from ever-deepening division and polarization.”² This is obviously true. About a year after the death of George Floyd, anyone with a working set of eyes would have noticed the division. It seemed like every section of Christianity had to say something about “justice.” The world of politics was no longer just politics. DeYoung then provides four different methods of understanding our approach to these issues. Looking back, it’s fairly obvious why his system of approaches were entirely unhelpful.

DeYoung – 4 Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender. 1) Contrite, 2) Compassionate, 3) Careful, 4) Courageous

It’s a nice thought, but the table doesn’t even come close to correct. DeYoung’s 4 C’s only really covered the Left-Wing to Moderate positions. The “Courageous” category doesn’t even account for half of all the Christian political discussion at the time. For example: where would you put these opinions on the scale DeYoung provided?

Trump: Many Christians believed it was impossible to acknowledge Biden as a legitimate civil authority after evidence of election fraud was released. Voting for Trump wasn’t even relevant.
Christian Nationalism: At the time (2 years ago), Right-wing Christians held to a range of beliefs from “populist” to “anarchist.” The Christian nationalism label was, if anything, a badge that described the moderate half of these movements.
Masks: Government encroachment was only half the story. Almost every private business or church was complicit in the mask or vaccine enforcement. Under these over-reaching circumstances, it was hard not to see mask-wearing as a symbol of Fauci-worship.

Needless to say, I’m not sure DeYoung’s system helped anybody.³ Kevin describes himself as a 3 (The Careful category), but also says that he doesn’t want these approaches to be too rigid to use. Rigid or not, the fact that the table he provides is only a spectrum of Left-wing thought is concerning. DeYoung may be able to ask the right question, but somehow forgot to represent half the answers. Kevin then clarified that the question at hand is a matter of differing sensibilities. We have many different political perspectives, and it is best to understand where we sit in order to understand others.

“Obviously, the biggest issue is race and everything that touches race (e.g., police shootings, Critical Race Theory, Trump), but it’s not just race that divides us. It is more broadly our different instincts and sensibilities, our divergent fears and suspicions, our various intellectual and cultural inclinations. Yes, there are important theological disagreements too, and these demand the best attention of our heads and hearts. But in many instances, people who can affirm the same doctrinal commitments on paper are miles apart in their posture and practice.”
Kevin DeYoungKevin DeYoung, “Why Reformed Evangelicalism Has Splintered: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender” ⁴

Regardless of your beliefs, it should be obvious that reducing these issues to “cultural contexts”, or “different instincts” is a very bold assertion. What makes this claim even more astounding is the fact that he failed to include almost the entire Right-wing. Take, for example, vaccines. On the one hand, some Christians believed “loving your neighbor” meant getting the experimental vaccine. On the other hand, some Christians assumed that “loving your neighbor” meant NOT practicing medical apartheid.⁵ The stark difference between these two viewpoints couldn’t be more extreme, yet Kevin’s article maintained that the political divides were merely differing inclinations.

From my view, every single political and cultural issue of the last few years has had significant theological implications. Even though DeYoung acknowledges the theological problems in these instincts, he is still mystified that people are “miles apart in their posture and practice.” Critical theory continues to run rampant in ecumenical circles, while even moderate Christians are labeled Christo-fascists with a Trumpism™ complex.

For some bewildering reason, however, DeYoung left us out of his chart. DeYoung had placed the entire political spectrum on a Left/Left-moderate scale without explanation. In a very real way, refusing to include the Christian Right in any meaningful way resulted in a schism larger than his instincts could handle. This post attempts to look at DeYoung’s instincts, and how they affect his understanding of Christian nationalism.

Before The Definition

In December of 2021, Kevin DeYoung offered his own more detailed opinions on the emerging term: “Christian nationalism.” His blog post article was written in response to prominent evangelical leaders and sociologists, who claimed Christian Nationalism was a movement that “degrades the credibility and witness of the church.”⁶ Writing in a somewhat defensive posture, DeYoung claims that the term was ill-defined and that we should critique it for what it is, not what it could be. DeYoung likely felt that the term Christian nationalism was a catch-all for conservatism, and felt it was being used to attack his position. Despite the misgivings, it was in this article on the “Ill-Defined Ism” that Kevin makes clear what is and is not acceptable for a Christian to believe.

There are real problems with the way some Christians think about and practice politics. We ought to reject all manner of conspiracy theories, racial partiality, demagoguery, and the syncretistic blending of Christianity and Americana. Further, we must not give in to hating their side, deifying our side, and looking to politics to solve our deepest problems and give us meaning in life. If this is Christian Nationalism, the only Christian position is to be steadfastly against it.
Kevin DeYoung, “What To Do With Christian Nationalism” – December 18, 2021 (Emphasis Added)⁷

While DeYoung did not present his own rationale in support of these arguments, it was entirely clear from the blog post that these political opinions were to be considered beyond the pale of acceptable thought. In fact, most of the article is spent raising the question: “where are the people actually advocating for Christian nationalism?”⁸ For DeYoung, this was a significant frustration. “We can argue about what constitutes Critical Race Theory, but no one can deny there is such a thing as Critical Race Theory. There are decades of books and articles defining, refining, and commending the concept. There is no similar body of literature on the subject of Christian nationalism.” ⁹

To summarize thus far, DeYoung was able to find decades of books and resources on the subject of Critical Race Theory, and decided to categorize the subject as a “different sensibility.” Admittedly, Kevin has raised some issues with the theological disagreements of this worldview, but remember that: “in many instances, people who can affirm the same doctrinal commitments on paper are miles apart in their posture and practice.”

In December of 2021, Kevin was trying to paint himself as a moderate – “There must be some middle ground between a theocratic Christian nationalism and a culturally-acceptable Christian nothingism.”¹⁰ Once again, DeYoung was only articulating half the picture. A significant number of Christians view liberalism and CRT as entirely separate religions, while he had labeled them “Christian nothingism.” It was clear that Kevin’s cultural instincts were tuned into the Left half of the discussion, incapable of even acknowledging the arguments on the Right. By ignoring these critiques, the evangelical division continued to grow in the background. While half the Christian Right-wing was rediscovering Protestant Resistance Theory, the other half started to view the new term Christian nationalism as a moderate position.

The Review

After months of struggling to understand this new political perspective, Kevin finally got his wish. The book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism”, was written by Stephen Wolfe, and laid out a very compelling argument. Kevin was prompt to review the book, laying out his own thoughts on the matter. Prior to reading his review, I had hoped that DeYoung’s history of defining himself as a conservative would kick in and that he would see these issues very similarly. However, by the time I had reached the third paragraph of his review, it became painfully evident that my prior hopes would need to be abandoned. Kevin’s review starts off forcefully – telling the reader that the book’s message must be rejected.

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”
Kevin DeYoung, “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” – November 28, 2022 ¹¹

Honestly, I should have seen this coming. DeYoung had not entertained a Right-wing position in a very long time. As a result, his cultural instinct had been trained to equate truly moderate positions as a form of Nazism, and the review made sure to point it out – fast. The summary he presented was so far off that it made me wonder if he had even been reading the right book. I had come away with a totally different synopsis and totally different reaction. Where I had found persuasive arguments, DeYoung had been unimpressed. Where DeYoung had understood the nation-centric ideas as negative, I had come to see it as a much-needed positive. I am keenly aware of the fact that some people will never see eye-to-eye in every situation. Nevertheless, I still could not understand how this summary of the same material was so significantly different from my own. Then, I remembered the criteria he had put into writing one year ago when Christian nationalism didn’t have its own book.

DeYoung had previously stated that for a political view to be acceptable, it must: “reject all manner of conspiracy theories, racial partiality, demagoguery, and the syncretistic blending of Christianity and Americana.”¹² In his book review, DeYoung claimed he was able to find all of these things.

Conspiracy Theories – “… trafficking in sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about the totalizing control of the Globalist American Empire and the gynocracy”
Racial Partiality: “By God’s grace, America has made great strides in overcoming racism in the past 60 years. I fail to see how Wolfe’s vision isn’t a giant step in the wrong direction.”
Demagoguery: “…which is the sort of demagogic instinct our Constitutional system was meant to oppose”
The blending of Christianity and Americana: “It’s one thing to suggest civil society may bear resemblance to heavenly realities or that in the life to come we’ll more deeply enjoy whatever is excellent in this life. It’s another to suggest the analog of the heavenly city is to be found in the earthly city.”

Prior to his review, Kevin had laid out his opinion on acceptable political opinion, so all he really had to do was find the parts of the book that didn’t fit these guidelines. It did not matter that in the book, “Wolfe clearly distinguishes between the civil realm and the ecclesial realm”, or that “Wolfe’s retrieval project from 16th- and 17th-century sources is largely correct.” DeYoung’s pre-determined, Left-leaning framework of tolerable Christian thought was unable to accommodate Christian Nationalism. It was simply a matter of identifying the parts of the book that didn’t fit his politically liberal worldview.

To the casual reader such as myself, this line of reasoning shows its flaws almost immediately. If Wolfe’s vision was correctly grounded on the shoulders of past theologians, wouldn’t John Calvin also be a racist? Does DeYoung consider Thomas Aquinas a conspiracy theorist? Anyone that didn’t fit DeYoung’s political spectrum would notice immediately that Kevin’s Left-wing sensibilities take the center stage in his review. It appeared as if he had simply forgotten that there were Christian political views outside of culturally-acceptable progressivism.

He had redefined the political center.

The New, Unwritten Goalposts

The longer you read the review, the more obvious the devotion that Kevin has to modern, liberal sensibilities. Almost every argument DeYoung raises against Christian Nationalism reveals his progressive inclinations. To add to this confusion is the fact that DeYoung assumes his perspective is a mainstream Right, attempting to shift the burden of proof to Wolfe. While others may consider Kevin to be a pastor with conservative sensibilities, the contextual perspective he presents is entirely unpersuasive to those that have rejected all forms of liberalism. Unlike DeYoung, I do not consider the last 60 years of American politics to be”great strides in overcoming racism.” If anything, these have been significant steps toward the problems we see today. As I recall, the homosexuality crisis ushered in by Obergefell v. Hodges was a direct result of the Civil Rights Act. Even a political centrist would consider the notorious activism and sexual promiscuity of Martin Luther King to have laid the groundwork for the sexual revolution. While a progressive instinct may see the national mourning of George Floyd as progress, those of us with a more robust definition of racialism will see the last 60 years as a regression.

DeYoung makes his liberal-conservative position sound even stranger when he calls into question the ethics of positively quoting Samuel Francis. If quoting Francis was an evangelical no-no, I had missed the memo. I was well aware of the fact that the man in question rejected Christianity, but was he not capable of providing insight into our times? “Though raised in a Protestant family, Francis was not a believer, and he wrote critically of conservatives who thought Christianity could provide philosophical and institutional resistance to liberalism.”¹³ Despite his own rejection of religion, it should be fairly obvious that Francis’ insight was prophetic. The Christianity that Francis had seen was a hollowed-out shell of the true Christian religion.

“Indeed, organised Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.”
Samuel Francis

The front page of the “Christian” news site *Christianity Today* (1/18/23). Most of the articles have an emphasis on Jewish foreign interests, along with articles advocating late-stage feminism.

It was not clear to me why DeYoung was attempting to paint Francis in a negative light. To me, Samuel’s criticism of organized Christianity appears to have significant merit. Look at the headlines of “christian” news organizations. Is this supposed to appeal to believers? Christianity is not Jewish or liberal. Christianity does not revolve around pseudo-Christian feminist opinion pieces. As far as I can tell, Francis is right – if this is what Christianity is about, it is unquestionably an enemy of the very culture that uses it as a foundation.

The Sliding Political Scale

Instead of addressing the beliefs of Samuel Francis, DeYoung continues the review, building on the previous disparaging comments. Kevin’s refusal to interact with Samuel’s critiques is ultimately problematic. If he does not address the arguments of Samuel Francis, Kevin simultaneously refuses to address anyone that is inclined to that position. Francis had consistently warned against the liberal drift within the conservative movement,¹⁴ and was able to see more than the petty political matters of the day. Rather than tackle this particularly prescient commentary, Kevin takes a different approach.

In round two of DeYoung vs Francis, the review starts by telling the reader to not associate ‘more conservative’ with ‘more correct.’ This is a necessary step if you want to make your opponent sound like an extremist, or if you are attempting to hide your own liberalism.

“I know the instinct that assumes that whatever position seems most ‘conservative’ must be correct, especially if that position is hated by the left. But that’s not a foolproof instinct.
[…]
Read the chapter on ‘The Nationalist’ in Matthew Rose’s 2021 book A World After Liberalism and you’ll see that many of the central ideas from Samuel Francis—the impotence of the conservative movement, the need to stir up the grievances of Middle America, the call for distinct ethnicities (read: white) to stop the self-harm and defend their own nation, the insistence that America is dead and revolution is necessary, and the encouragement to make use of Caesarism and the mass loyalties that a charismatic leader inspires—are present in Wolfe’s own vision.”
Kevin DeYoung, “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” – November 28, 2022

Instead of arguing with these positions, DeYoung only attempts to frame them in suspicion or make them sound unreasonable. For me, the issues Kevin raises are ones I would love to have answered! Why is the conservative movement not important? What should we do about the grievances of Middle America, if not address them? If America is not dead, what is it? Should White Americans really continue in self-harm?

If DeYoung had instead attempted to deal with these issues in some capacity, he would sound a little less willfully ignorant. By dodging these issues, he tries to pretend that the majority of Right-leaning evangelicals didn’t abandon the modern-conservative-liberalism stance. If modern-day conservatism is defined by Trump, then conservatism does not align with the Christian political Right. Trump’s version of conservatism supports homosexuality,¹⁵ exceptions for murder,¹⁶ and anti-Christian foreign interests¹⁷ If Trump was the definition of the “Conservative” party, we have totally forgotten the meaning of the word conservative. For some reason, DeYoung’s primary arguments rely on that assumption. It’s simply not true. The modern-day “Conservative” is really just a Left-leaning moderate.

When I visit the VDARE website, I am greeted with the article, “Civil Rights In 2023: Wells Fargo Pauses Its Mortgage Lending Program To White Applicants, Prioritizing Non-White Borrowers.”¹⁸ By portraying affirmative action as a bad thing, VDARE directly contradicts most of the ecumenical discussion about race. In the liberal world, the sin of racism is essentially defined by relating it to equal outcomes. If you deny affirmative action, you commit the “sin” of racism. In fact, this concept is so deeply rooted in DeYoung’s thinking that he is literally incapable of understanding Wolfe’s arguments. As an example, take this video of John Piper encouraging racial consciousness and affirmative action.¹⁹

“If there were no other problems with the book, Wolfe’s vigorous defense of becoming ‘more exclusive and ethnic-focused’ (459) should stop in their tracks all who are ready to follow Wolfe’s vision for national renewal. The fact that the left thinks racism is everywhere doesn’t mean racism is nowhere. Wolfe may eschew contemporary racialist categories, but he doesn’t make clear how his ideas on kinship are different from racist ideas of the past that have been used to forbid interracial marriage and to enforce the legal injustice of ‘separate but equal.’”
Kevin DeYoung, “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” – November 28, 2022

If DeYoung was capable of understanding racism outside of liberal thinking, Wolfe’s book would have been a no-brainer. Instead, the case he makes for his own progressive political instincts is wholly unconvincing. If DeYoung had truly considered “The Case For Christian Nationalism” to be a form of right-wing wokeism, John Piper would have to be labeled a Left-wing extremist!²⁰ Instead of engaging Christian nationalist arguments, Kevin passes them off as a form of racism. Apparently, accepting a definition of racism that doesn’t revolve around a liberal framework appears to be too great a task.

The Aftermath

If your definition of racism is rooted in the concept of forced affirmative discrimination for minorities, you reduce the word race to mean nothing more than a social construct. Reducing biological human differences to a system of social constructs inevitably leads to an unconscionable worldview. As more and more things become “social constructs”, we lose more and more grounding in reality. DeYoung appeals to natural law in his case for universal principles, but simultaneously loses his case for natural law by downplaying the very reality it is based in. While DeYoung would certainly stop this line of reasoning on the subject of race, this line of reasoning quickly becomes cancerous. What happens when sex loses its grounding in reality, and is instead seen as a societal construct? Is marriage really just between a man and a woman? If a person’s cultural context allows age to become just a number, don’t be surprised when you see a growing number of “christian pedophiles.”

After reading Kevin’s review it’s hard to see the article as anything more than a case for his own “cultural instincts.” Two years ago, he was able to accurately identify the widely differing sensibilities of Christendom – why the evangelical world feels so divided. The original article ended by encouraging Christians to live with the “differing sensibilities” of Christian Nationalism and Critical Theory instead of allowing the arguments to play out to their logical conclusion. DeYoung did this by attempting to steer the conversation differently, ²¹ suggesting a renewed focus on Christ. Now, everything is a gospel issue, and the conservative evangelical world is still ignoring the issues at hand – a solution that leaves everyone unhappy.

In his book review, he does not make the same mistake. Kevin desperately attempts to portray his political instincts as a biblical issue; moving the issue to a framework that can be judged objectively.

“Biblical instincts are better than nationalist ones, and the ethos of the Christian Nationalism project fails the biblical smell test.”
Kevin DeYoung, “The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism” – November 28, 2022

The questions he then poses as a litmus test indicates the extent of his truly disconnected approach. “Will the person who goes all in on this book […] be apt to grow in faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13)?” For me, the answer is an obvious YES. This book has been a greatly encouraging resource. In fact, I would suggest that Stephen Wolfe’s book provides an essential framework for even making sense of 1 Corinthians 13. Verse 3 in particular makes it clear: the Christian understanding of love cannot be reduced to something like “social justice” or “reparations”. The Case for Christian Nationalism provides a much-needed framework for even understanding a Christian’s growth in faith, hope, and love.

And therein lies the problem: DeYoung’s attempt to convert his own political sensibilities into a “smell test” game falls on mostly deaf ears. If Christian nationalism is just right-wing woke, it defeats the purpose of the entire review. When did this “Biblical instinct” ever help against Left-wing drift? Looking at Kevin’s denomination (PCA), what did this instinct say about Ligon Duncan’s “Woke Church? How did this Biblical sensibility help when it comes to the Revoice/Side B heresies? When Greg Thompson and Duke Kwon (PCA) argued for reparations, did this instinct actually weed out the substitute religion?²²

It should be incredibly obvious by now that Christians are no longer interested in “smell test” games. Despite the fact that DeYoung had noticed a sort of “surrogate religion”²³ in the CRT-heavy book, he was still unable to denounce the case for reparations as a wholly unchristian project. DeYoung may think his critique of “Right-wing wokeism” should cause Christians to “stop in their tracks”, but I know many believers who still continue to run; trying to put some distance between Christianity and the godless religion of liberalism. Decisions to procrastinate on these subjects have only made things worse.

“Too often, we think we are fighting about the gospel or fighting about whether we should love and listen to minority brothers and sisters, but really we are fighting about how to define Critical Race Theory. As a pastor, that’s way down on the list of fights I want to have.”
Kevin DeYoung, “We Must Find a Better Way to Talk About Race” – January 6, 2021²⁴

It looks like these fights were never had, and it looks like these fights were also somehow lost.

Finale

If Kevin DeYoung presents an acceptable moderate position to you, I won’t stop you from joining him. What may come as a surprise to you, however, is the fact that more and more Christians are starting to see this position as Left-wing. I would predict that as Christianity returns to its roots, an increasing number of Christians will see Kevin’s views as a form of liberal syncretism. The perception of a moderate, middle way is evaporating quickly. No left-wing voter is interested in a political framework that denies intersectionality or the importance of social justice. Likewise, no right-wing Christian is interested in a political view that accommodates infanticide, homosexuality, or pedophilia.

I would further suggest that Stephen Wolfe’s book IS the middle ground. Wolfe paints a picture of Christianity that deals with cultural instincts head-on and deals with them in a way that forces the issue. If your biblical instincts cause you to treat your closest neighbors as foreigners, they are not truly biblical instincts. Instead, If we build up instead of tearing down our community’s instincts, we draw closer to each other.

“… we know by instinct and reason, that we ought to prefer our own nation and countrymen over others. This instinct is not from the fall or due to sin; it is natural and, therefore, good. We are naturally drawn to what, in principle is necessary for our complete good. If the reader lacks this instinct, consider the good in it.”
Stephen Wolfe, “The Case for Christian Nationalism” (p. 150)

Don’t reduce these questions to “smell tests” and political frameworks. Instead, consider the good.

Sources:

1
Kevin DeYoung, “Why Reformed Evangelicalism Has Splintered: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender” – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/
2
ibid.
3
Pastor Doug Wilson also notes the imbalance of the scale: “I think DeYoung would agree that I am a 4, but I would argue that 4s are probably the most ecumenical of the lot.” – https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/kevin-deyoung-and-the-taxonomy-of-conflict.html
4
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/
5
https://www.toddstarnes.com/show/tim-kellers-church-separates-congregants-by-vaxx-status/
6
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/november/moore-blood-need-savior-state-christian-nationalism.html
7
https://kevindeyoung.org/what-to-do-with-christian-nationalism/
8
ibid.
9
ibid.
10
ibid.
11
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/christian-nationalism-wolfe/
12
Kevin DeYoung, “What To Do With Christian Nationalism” – December 18, 2021
13
Matthew Rose, “The Outsider” – October 2019 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/10/the-outsider
14
“The truth is that, for all their talk about social “roots,” conservative intellectuals in the postwar era were often rootless men themselves, and the philosophical mystifications in which they enveloped themselves were frequently the only garments that fit them.” ― Samuel T. Francis, Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism
15
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/16/celebration-same-sex-marriage-mar-a-lago-00074441
16
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3798996-trumps-abortion-remarks-underscore-political-peril-for-gop/
17
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/no-president-has-done-more-for-israel-than-i-have-trump/2713242
18
https://vdare.com/posts/civil-rights-in-2023-wells-fargo-pauses-its-mortgage-lending-program-to-white-applicants-prioritizing-non-white-borrowers
19
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/cant-afford-to-be-color-blind/
20
Video: John Piper (2011) argues for racial consciousness and affirmative action – https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/cant-afford-to-be-color-blind/
21
This one: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/
22
DeYoung wrote a book review in response to their arguments for reparations. He is very critical of their new, anti-white theology, but decides that they are still within the bounds of the orthodox Christian faith. “It has become commonplace among conservatives to claim that antiracism or social justice or wokeness is becoming a kind of surrogate religion. I certainly don’t believe Kwon and Thompson are meaning to replace Christianity with a religion of antiracism or the like. Indeed, they are to be commended for digging deeply into the Christian tradition, especially in their chapters on restitution and restoration.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/reparations-a-critical-theological-review/
23
ibid.
24
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/we-must-find-a-better-way-to-talk-about-race/

Kevin DeYoung: The Case For A Christian Sensibility

Before The Definition

The Review

The New, Unwritten Goalposts

The Sliding Political Scale

The Aftermath

Finale

Sources:

Author Information:

Book Reviews

Nationalism

Right-Wing Dissident

Leave a Reply Cancel reply