In the 2025 PCA General Assembly, they authorized the Ad Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism to give guidance to churches and pastors on Christian Nationalism. Going into the 2026 General Assembly, the committee has released its partial report while also recommending a continuation of their committee for another year. The overall report represents a mixed bag that, while it supports liberalism, ultimately lacks the teeth to discredit Christian Nationalism. Because they are forced to reckon with the legitimacy of historic Reformed thought pertaining to politics, they cannot disavow it. Nevertheless, there is plenty of cause for critique contained in the report.
Westminster Confession Fidelity
The PCA formally holds to the 1788 version of the Westminster Confession of Faith as opposed to the true 1646 version. The 1788 Philadelphia version is used by the PCA and the OPC. The ARP uses its own 1799 version which is more establishmentarian than the 1788.
The original 1646 WCF Chapter 23 on the Civil Magistrate reads as follows:
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 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 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 hath 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.
The Protestant Reformers believed that the Magistrate had the authority to call synods and councils to redress church issues. Historically, this is why most of the confessions and creeds exist, including the Westminster Confession. The Catholic argument at the time was that only the Church (Rome) had the authority to call ecumenical councils. The prooftexts for this authority cited by the Divines include Matthew 2:4-5 where Herod calls the synod of Pharisees and scribes to deliberate the location of the Messiah’s birth for the Magi. While Herod was a wicked king, it was still within his lawful authority to issue that directive. The original language does not give license to the State to dictate the Church’s doctrine. The same is applied to the subject of blasphemies and heresies, that the Magistrate is tasked with their suppression, not so much their definition. Much of the Old Testament Law, like Deuteronomy 13 is cited as a prooftext.
The 1788 version reads as follows:
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in His Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. 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.
The PCA committee argues that this is derived from the developmental differences between the American colonies and Europe, which while true does not make the 1788 more biblically faithful. They specifically cite the Adopting Act of 1729 which was a compromise between the New England Puritans, who were non-strict adherers of the Westminster Standards, and the Scots-Irish, who were strict adherents. The Puritans believed that requiring strict subscription would violate Sola Scritura. The Adopting Act was a compromised that allowed exceptions to non-essential Chapters with special interest to Chapters 20 and 23. This became a precedent within American Presbyterianism. Despite the committee’s positive perception of these events, it should be noted that doctrinal fidelity fell apart within the Puritans and the Church of Scotland when the guardrails of confessionalism became relaxed. In the modern PCA, there is an ongoing issue on the nature of exceptions one can take to the WCF and whether the pastor can teach those exceptions as opposed to the Westminster Standards, so this debate is centuries old.
One of the glaring flaws in the committee’s interpretation of the 1788 is that they apply the religious tolerance language to all religions despite the confession’s restrictions to Christian denominations. The committee writes, “the revised text added the language of ‘nursing father,’ indicating that the magistrate’s role was to protect the church from interference rather than to direct or reform the church.” The language of “nursing father” from Isaiah 49:23 is also a prooftext cited in favor of the magistrate reforming the church when necessary, so this phrase is not mutually exclusive.
The committee uses this assessment of the Westminster Confessions to present five views of Christian Nationalism. The first two are General Influence and Nursing Father. The General Influence view is the basic view that the “biblical moral principles should inform legislation” but this extends to the protection of “free exercise of all religions.” As mentioned, this conflates the Westminster tolerance with tolerance for all religions, which is absent in the text and the tradition. The Nursing Father position differs in that “the civil magistrate has a duty to protect the church and to foster an environment favorable to Christianity.” Both of these positions are deemed acceptable in the PCA without needing to take exception to the 1788 WCF.
Holding to the original 1646 text is labeled as the Establishment Position in which they conclude, “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.” Within Presbyterian polity, this just means that an adherent to the original text must state this exception to either their Session (local church) or their Presbytery. If this was the worst element of this report, that would be a victory. Overall, having seen this exception taken in a local context, it would unlikely lead to controversy provided the candidate conducted themself with diligence.
The next view would be that of Theonomy and Theonomic Reconstruction:
A candidate or officer who affirms that God’s moral law provides general equity principles relevant to civil justice operates well within confessional bounds. A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.
The committee outsources the consideration of Theonomy to the 1983 PCA on the subject, so they are basically concluding, “asked and answered” rather than attempting to relitigate the subject. There are problems with theonomic thought pertaining to the one-for-one enforcement of Mosaic Law, but the principle of “general equity” is rooted in the Westminster Standards. Calvin does argue against the enforcement of precise penal sanctions to the degree the Mosaic law prescribes, but not whether certain acts should be criminalized. The problem of the committee is that there can be a conflation between Theonomy and applying criminal punishments to sodomy and adultery. The committee report applies the general equity distinction but still concludes that it should be declared to the session.
On Race and Ethnicity
Regarding race and ethnicity, the committee conflates the spiritual and political realm pertaining to race consistently throughout the report.
It is the view of the Committee that any form of Christian Nationalism that elevates ethnic or racial identity to a position of theological significance, that treats ethnic homogeneity as a positive good to be pursued through civil law, or that justifies discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race is inconsistent with the PCA’s constitutional Standards and with Scripture.
On one hand, it is wrong to establish theological and ecclesiological significance to race as the Gospel is to go forth to all nations. However, the PCA report exceeds the theological into the political by condemning “ethnic homogeneity as a positive good to be pursued through civil law.” That is not a theological statement, but a political one. Since the gospel neither removes gender or race, these distinctions still exist and have manifest differences in society. The committee is arguing that one cannot advocate against mass immigration because that would be arguing the need for more ethnic homogeneity. Immigration is inherently a question of racial harmony or the lack thereof. The enforcement of this statement precludes one from deliberating failures of policies relating to desegregation, like integrated schooling or the Civil Rights Act. For a full breakdown of this issue, our critique of the ARP statement goes into the absurdities of attempting to regulate political thought in contradiction to WCF Chapter 31.4.
In the very next section, they address the objection of whether the Korean presbyteries practice Kinism.
The Committee wishes to distinguish carefully, however, between Ethno-Nationalism and the fact that cultural and linguistic differences exist within the body of Christ. The PCA itself maintains Korean-language Presbyteries, reflecting the practical reality that worship and fellowship may be enriched when conducted in a shared language.
So Korean Presbyteries are not practicing ethnic preference but linguistic preference. This is a ridiculous degree of mental gymnastics to suggest that the Koreans do not have preferences for their fellow Koreans. While they might say that they are not exclusively for Koreans, that does not exclude that there is a preference being applied. The practice of speaking Korean in an English-speaking nation would implicit be a deterrence for outsiders participating in their worship service, which one would reasonably label as exclusivity. It is good that Koreans have their own style of worship and prefer worshiping with their fellow Koreans. The report says nothing about the black solidarity groups that persist in the PCA or the other minority interests groups. These standards are only weaponized against whites, as was seen in the case of Zachary Garris.
Earlier in the report, the committee outlines a series of affirmations and denials. This is their 7th affirmation:
We further affirm that the natural bonds of kinship and peoplehood are recognized in Scripture, and that Christians may rightly love their own families, communities, and cultural inheritances as gifts of God’s providential care.
They claim that one can have natural affections with those most closely related to them until that applies to race or ethnicity as a whole.
Nevertheless, we deny that race, ethnicity, or biological descent establish intrinsic moral hierarchies, or confer superior spiritual worth, political legitimacy, or ecclesiastical authority. We reject kinism and all theological and political systems that treat racial hierarchy or separation as in any way permissible. Such views contradict the biblical doctrine of the unity of humanity, the universality of sin, and the impartial justice of God (Rom. 2:6-11; James 2:1-9). We further deny that love for one’s own people or heritage justifies contempt for, exclusion of, or injustice toward others. Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and to honor the dignity of all people as those created in God’s image (Lev. 19:33-34; Matt. 22:37-39; James 2:8-9).
In addition to blending the political with the spiritual, they conflate love of ethnicity with Kinism and there is little thought placed into the underlying language. The US Constitution was written to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” This statement establishes political legitimacy for the heirs of the Founders, not Mankind universally. So contrary to the committee, biological decent does confer political legitimacy, and historically, this has always correlated with ethnicity or race even if not exclusively. In American history, it was exclusive to the whites at the Founding. In condemning a love of one’s ethnicity as justifying exclusion, they are arguing that you cannot love your heritage to the exclusion of the foreigner. If a nation cannot be for a specific people and place to the exclusion of others, then nations are simply economic zones and sports teams.
They further claim to affirm ordo amoris but reject the notion that ordo amoris can apply to race or ethnicity. Again, this will only be weaponized against whites. Blacks can have their ethnic affinity groups and Koreans can have their presbyteries, but whites cannot have solidarity with fellow whites according to the committee. Every other group gets to practice ordo amoris with their ethnicity except white people. When Stephen Wolfe says that “white people are their own in-group’s out-group,” the committee is enshrining that mentality as a dogma.
Religious Tolerance
One of the prevailing themes is the notion of religious tolerance that exceeds the language of the 1788 WCF yet is framed as being consistent within the bounds of the text. The committee affirms that the civil magistrate “must seek to honor moral law in the prosecution of his duties, according to the dictates of prudence and the needs of each particular society” but then goes on to deny that preventing the prevalence of false religion is within the moral law.
We further deny the right of the Christian magistrate to engage in persecution, suppression, or the disenfranchisement of citizens on the basis of religion.
Taken to its logical conclusion, they are arguing that America cannot deport people who hold to foreign religions like Islam or Hinduism on the basis of this religion (or race) alone.
Third Wayism
The report is toothless because they cannot reject outright the theology of the Westminster Divines, John Knox, Samuel Rutherford, or John Calvin. They can only conclude that such adherents declare their exceptions during the ordination process, which is a normal procedure within a Presbyterian examination process. The report is filled with the premise that Christian Nationalists are worthy of dialogue and engagement within the church. Because of the faces behind the committee, the report devolve into Third-Wayism.
Second, don’t be tempted to treat all political disagreement as a spiritual problem. A member who holds views associated with Christian Nationalism is not necessarily in spiritual danger any more than a member who holds strongly progressive political views. The court’s concern should be with how political convictions affect a person’s walk with Christ, relationships within the body, and participation in the life of the congregation—not with the political convictions themselves. [emphasis added]
Christian Nationalism, rooted in the Reformed Tradition, is equivocated with modern Progressivism. The fact that they use the term member specifically denotes church membership those who hold progressive political views with little definition on which progressive views, if any, are impermissible. The progressive member who believes in abortion until birth is equivocated with the one who thinks the State should show preference to Christianity.
Tone Police
There are several instances where the report seeks to tone police online speech or discourse. In their pastoral letter, they highlight the following:
Second, although the renewed interest in political theology is commendable, we cannot help but be alarmed by the intemperate and unclean speech adopted by some of those who call themselves Christian Nationalists. We wish to remind the officers and members of the Presbyterian Church in America that whatever form our political theology may take, and however urgent the perceived problems and crises facing the nation may be, nothing can justify ungodliness in speech, or in conduct. It is sometimes suggested that there is a crisis of masculinity in contemporary America and that much that ails our society in both church and state is a result of the pervasive feminization of our culture…Yet whatever solutions Christians may offer to these challenges, whether real or perceived, crass language, unclean speech, and disdain for the good name of our neighbors must not be excused.
While there is problematic speech online, they frame it as an issue exclusive to Christian Nationalism while the unjust prosecution of Zachary Garris demonstrates that the enforcement of unwholesome speech is arbitrary. They will condemn Christian Nationalists while excusing BLM activists like Anthony Bradley for far worse utterances. Furthermore, the standards at which they call language crass or unclean would vilify the likes of Calvin, Luther, and Knox.
They also seek to tone belief discourse pertaining to women in what is perhaps a veiled allusion to Joel Webbon.
Nevertheless, we deny that cultural anxieties or social change justify profane speech or contempt for women. Affirming complementarity does not preclude women’s participation in education, civic life, or public service. Political authority must remain accountable to justice and be exercised for the good of all.
Their standard of complementarianism is tantamount to soft egalitarianism. They are stating that one must affirm female seminarians, which dilutes the value of seminary and leads to female ordination. Scripture explicitly calls female leadership a curse in Isaiah 3:12 while Paul prohibits female ordination from ontological grounds, yet the committee report affirms female participation in civic life or public service. The application of Paul’s reasoning is rooted in nature itself, so it is not limited in application to the walls of the church. By their standard, complementarianism does not preclude female military service but would condemn as crass any who suggest that female soldiers are stereotypically barrack bunnies.
Slavery
The committee analyzes the role of the pastor or church within the realm of political engagement, believing a separation between the man within his office versus as an individual. They then compare the objections of Christian Nationalism pertaining to the lack of political engagement from the church with that of the “silence” on the issue of slavery in the Antebellum South.
Some proponents of Christian Nationalism have argued that the doctrine of the spirituality of the church has been misapplied in the PCA to create a false separation between faith and public life, and that it has sometimes been invoked to silence prophetic witness on issues where Scripture speaks clearly. This criticism is not without merit. The doctrine has at times been used as a pretext for the church’s failure to address clear moral evils, like the institution of slavery and its aftermath. The abuse of a doctrine, though, does not invalidate the doctrine itself or its proper use. Correctly understood, the doctrine of the spirituality of the church protects both the church from politicization, and the state from ecclesiastical overreach.
Slavery was not a “clear moral evil.” This is an anachronistic reading of history. The Scriptures do not condemn slavery as evil but regulate it as a legitimate social institution. The Mosaic Law had so-called chattel slavery provisions for foreign slaves which would mirror that of the South. The notion that American slavery was somehow worse than other forms, whether Roman slavery or biblical slavery, is untrue and unsupported by historical evidence. The Romans had sex slaves and gladiator slaves. They were not all indentured servants. The era of Reconstruction and the Civil War, spurred on by radical abolitionists and the Radical Republicans, led to more injustice, property seizure, and needless death that far exceeds the balance of evils of the American slave system. The SBC was correct on the issue at the time, and so too were Dabney and Thornwell. The Left’s embrace of John Brown is out of anti-white hatred, which is the same hatred he displayed against southern whites while he was alive. Christians today should not ignorantly view the Antebellum South with anachronistic lens that was perpetuated by the same spiritual forces used to advance progressivism in modern times.
The committee produced what is called a “partial” report, implicating that the content is not finished. While it is unclear what direction their “research” will take if granted another year, they could likely venture deeper into the tradition of presbyterian thinkers like Dabney.
Conclusion
The Ad Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism could not outright condemn Christian Nationalism because of the implications of condemning historic Reformed thought would discredit them entirely. In many ways, they are forced to reckon with the fruit of those who embrace “the richness of the Reformed tradition.” They are forced to accept the legitimacy of Christian Nationalism within the realm of political thought. Although they mandate the declaration of these exceptions, this report will not outright be used to remove Christian Nationalism from the PCA.
However, the flaws of the report will be used to enforce the ridiculous ARP statement as a standard within the PCA. The committee is bought in to enshrining the Civil Rights Act as the true embodiment of Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Westminster Confession does not permit the regulation of the political via the councils and synods, but the committee habitually conflates that which is political with that which is ecclesial, especially pertaining to race. They will not crack down on Christian Nationalism for adhering to Reformed thought, but for racial wrong-think which will only be weaponized against Whites. This is the danger within the report, but it is written to its own intellectual discredit.
