One Confession, Two Texts: First Thoughts on the PCA’s Christian Nationalism Report

I’m not sure the number twenty three has been this famous since the ’90s.

Well known to all who follow such things is the fact that the PCA appointed a committee at last year’s General Assembly to study the issue of what has been called “Christian Nationalism.” This was not without significant debate (for a variety of reasons) but regardless, it was voted upon by the assembly, and a committee, with advisors, was appointed.

Since that time, much has happened. Books have been published, podcasts recorded, and nuances and clarifications have been made, all the while the committee has had to take on what appeared to be an insurmountable task in the time frame of one year. The committee was tasked with:

1. “Provide pastoral guidance to elders ‘when addressing congregations, new members, and future officers of the PCA.’”
2. “[Advise] on whether these teachings and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards or where they may diverge from the system of doctrine.”

As it turned out, one year was not sufficient, and the committee is asking for an extension. In the meantime, they have released a partial report to aid individuals, officers, churches, and presbyteries in thinking through these things.

📄 Read the report: PCA Ad-Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism — Partial Report (June 2026)

A few important notes for those unfamiliar with Presbyterian polity, which the online discourse suggests many are not:

The committee report is not officially received until voted upon. Therefore, right now, it is just a piece of paper institutionally speaking.

Even if the partial report is received and adopted, it carries no constitutional weight. It is, at best, pious advice. It can be referred to for the sake of argumentation but carries the same constitutional weight as citing Calvin or some other theological work.

Where this is a little tricky is that the committee is making suggestions for how presbyteries ought to weigh things for candidates seeking ordination. So this report is speaking to judicial matters in ways some others may not. Again, though, the committee report, if adopted, will still carry no constitutional weight.

The committee report is 35 pages, and it would be impossible to cover much of it in a short blog post. Instead, I will link three videos below that approach the topics, though only one deals with the committee report specifically.

---

I. A Positive

One of the things I found most encouraging was the committee’s word about unity. They called out various unchristian speech and actions on the side of Christian Nationalism (since CN was the object in view of the report) but also clearly stated that we should be very slow to condemn all forms of CN as being represented by its worst proponents. In fact, as I understood the report, we should not view with hostility those who would argue for establishmentarian views, a term that maybe could afford clearer defining by the committee. There are, in fact, currently two denominations within NAPARC that still hold to the original Westminster Confession of 1646, where in Chapter 23 it says:

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has 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 blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), 23.3

This position, seemingly agreed upon by most on “both sides” (in quotes because there are far more than two sides within all camps) is the historic position of the Reformed from the 16th through 18th centuries. A Reformed person cannot call this view heterodox without undermining a predominant political theology of their heritage and some current fellow NAPARC churches.

The debate does come in at this point, however, because the American Revision of 1788, in 23.3, says:

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 (John 18:36; Malachi 2:7; Acts 5:29). 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 (Isaiah 49:23). And, as Jesus Christ has 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. 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 of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1788), 23.3

This is a notable difference, to be sure. But the reason I highlight this point as a positive is because I hope that the inflammatory discussions can be put aside on “both sides” and more good-faith conversations can be had. Christians engaging with one another on the topic of political theology is not a bad thing, as the committee also states. It should be iron sharpening iron. Lay down the guns, everyone, and let’s engage on the substance of the arguments. But for that to happen, we need to keep our speech and attitudes Christ-like toward one another.

---

II. A Tension Point

There are still some tension points, and some of them may derive from the simple fact that we don’t yet have the committee’s full work. We do not know the reasoning behind how they are seemingly understanding WCF 23 in 1788 and its distinctions from WCF 23 in 1646.

The question that many are asking is: why, and to what extent, is it a departure from the original 1646?

Is it because some of the American Presbyterians became more biblically unconvinced of establishmentarian positions and believe the civil magistrate is to remain neutral and protect all religious expressions equally? This is what many of us commonly understand a “religious freedom” perspective to be.

Or is the 1788 merely adapting to the American political scene as opposed to a monarchy, while the underlying assumption is still that the civil magistrate has a job not only to protect Christianity specifically but also to promote it?

And how does one square Westminster Larger Catechism 108 with the revision in 23.3?

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 108

Or even WCF 23.2, which is the same in both versions of the Westminster Confession:

It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.

Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.2

The tension point here is: what does it mean for the magistrate to maintain “piety”? The committee grants that a latitude of understandings is permissible.

Here, in short, is the committee’s stated position on the Establishment Position and its implications for a PCA officer:¹

Some who identify as Christian Nationalists advocate for a return to the establishment principle as articulated in the 1646 Westminster Confession. This position holds that the civil magistrate has a duty to establish true religion in law, to suppress heresies and blasphemies, to reform the church when it falls into corruption, and to call ecclesiastical synods when necessary. This is the position held by many of the original Westminster Divines, by the Scottish Covenanters, and by such branches of the Presbyterian tradition such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

As a matter of historical Reformed theology, this position has deep and respectable roots. It would be both historically dishonest and pastorally harmful to suggest that the establishment principle is heterodox, given that it was the dominant view of the Reformed tradition for more than two centuries and was held by some of the greatest theologians of the church. Even so, the position is directly contrary to the text of the 1788 American revision of WCF 23.3, which the PCA has adopted as its constitutional standard. The 1788 text explicitly states that the magistrate may not “in the least, interfere in matters of faith” and must protect all denominations “without giving the preference” to any above the rest. In the opinion of the Committee, a PCA officer who holds to the establishment principle as articulated in the 1646 text is out of accord with the PCA’s Standards and must declare this difference to his examining body.

Whether the difference is tolerable under “good faith subscription” is a judgment that the courts of the church must make with due consideration. This Committee has opined that the 1788 revision was a deeply considered revision of the Confession’s teaching on a significant doctrinal point but asserts here that there may be some variance of views regarding establishment that are not considered to strike at the vitals of religion and may therefore be acceptable to Presbyteries. These may touch on fundamental questions of religious liberty, the spirituality of the church, and the nature of Christ’s kingship. We also note again that the 1646 position is held by some sister denominations in NAPARC and is not considered a barrier to inter-church cooperation at the denominational level. Presbyteries should weigh these considerations carefully and exercise their judgment with both fidelity to the Standards and charity toward brothers who hold a historic position.

Ad-Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism, Partial Report (PCA, June 2026), Section C

For my part, it is currently unclear from the committee’s recommendation whether someone who held to a position such as that of James Baird in his book King of Kings² (a position devoid of any form of kinism or racism, but leaning upon a harmonized interpretation of WLC 108 and WCF 23, who does think the magistrate has a duty to suppress false religion) would have to take a stated exception with the 1788 revision or not. From what I have seen online, I am not the only one who is unsure.

---

III. Last Words

I think it is important for us to distinguish in these discussions the differences between the theological and historical arguments and what one is to do now. There are establishmentarians who think it would be imprudent to have Sabbath laws now, even if they think the civil magistrate has the right to implement them.

There are those not in the CN camp who are perfectly fine with Speaker Mike Johnson having a Presbyterian minister open Congress in prayer.

We should not argue against biblical and theological principles based on perceived pragmatic implications for those positions. They aren’t irrelevant, but we must deal with the exegesis and the reasoning for the positions first, something I greatly look forward to the committee being allowed to produce if we do indeed extend their work. Let the arguments speak for themselves. That is how Christians should engage one another in matters of theology, no matter what kind, be it biblical, historical, political, or otherwise.

For those wanting to engage the arguments on both sides, David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms³ and James Baird’s King of Kings are both worth your time.

---

IV. Further Viewing

Three videos worth your time on the report and the broader debate.

---

Footnotes