Christian Nationalism: A Biblical and Pastoral Response

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has released its long-awaited Ad Interim Committee Partial Report on Christian Nationalism. Submitted in response to Overture 47 from the 52nd General Assembly, this roughly 20-page document takes primarily a pastoral approach, rather than offering a comprehensive political theology. It provides thoughtful guidance for PCA leaders and members as they navigate heated cultural and online debates, while firmly grounding those discussions in Scripture and the Westminster Standards.

Even though I stand outside PCA polity, I appreciate several aspects of this effort. It is encouraging to see a major denomination address these timely questions, especially in an election year.

The committee acknowledges that the term “Christian Nationalism” is notoriously difficult to define. The term can refer to everything from ordinary Christian civic engagement to full-blown theocratic visions or ethnically exclusive ideologies. (I discussed the various streams of Christian Nationalism in a previous essay.) What I find most helpful is that the report avoids simply endorsing or condemning the label "Christian nationalism." Instead, it evaluates its underlying ideas. I think that is a wise, non-reactive strategy.

Core Conclusions

The report welcomes renewed interest in Reformed political theology. I appreciate that the framers say that Christians have a duty to love their neighbors by engaging in politics. This includes actions like voting, advocating, serving in public office, and seeking laws that reflect biblical standards of justice and moral order.

At the same time, the committee wisely warns that political zeal must never eclipse the church’s primary mission: preaching the gospel and making disciples. I think this is an important, if obvious, point.

The writers place a major emphasis falls on tone and conduct. The report condemns “intemperate and unclean speech,” quarrelsome behavior, and contempt for neighbors. It calls officers and members to higher standards of charity, even in online spaces. Political differences alone should not fracture church unity.

While I support this emphasis on charity, I also wonder whether such language could unintentionally stifle robust debate. As Protestant Christians seek to develop a robust framework for public engagement in a post-Christian West, we still need space for vigorous public discussion.

I appreciate that the report draws clear lines against a number of unbiblical ideas. This includes rejecting the errors of antisemitism, race realism, Kinism, and any theology that promotes ethnic segregation or racial hierarchies. These positions clearly contradict the biblical teaching on the unity of the human race and the transnational nature of the church (Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28; Revelation 7:9).

That said, I think there is still a lot more work to do on the issue of defining nations, ethnicity and culture, and clarifying how to think about these realities in light of biblical teaching. This report takes a helpful first step, but further refinement is needed.

The 12 Affirmations and Denials

The foundational operating assumption of the document is its commitment to the 1788 Westminster Standards (rather than the 1646 original). The 1788 version significantly limits the magistrate’s role, emphasizing religious liberty without preference or coercion.

The heart of the report are 12 paired affirmations and denials. These outline the “scope and range of scripturally and constitutionally acceptable opinion.”

Key affirmations include:

• Civil government is ordained by God for justice and order but cannot do the church's redemptive work.

• Christians may rightly pursue political arrangements that better reflect biblical morality.

• The church may address government leaders on biblical issues but must not meddle in civil affairs or bind peopel's consciences beyond what Scripture says.

• Nations, peoples, and ordered loves are providential realities. Christians may love their own families, communities, and cultural inheritances.

• Liberal political orders have secured real goods, including religious liberty, limited government, human dignity. Christians should preserve these goods rather than discard for reactionary alternatives.

• Christ’s lordship extends to every sphere, yet the church’s mission advances primarily through Word and Spirit, not state power.

Corresponding denials firmly close the door on:

• Coercive establishment of a state religion or the suppression of heresies.

• Persecution, coercion of conscience, or religious tests for office.

• Racial or ethnic hierarchies and Kinism.

• Using political engagement as license for uncharitable speech.

• The idea that any political program can substitute for gospel renewal.

Pastoral Guidance

Instructions about conformity, accountability and church discipline varies. For example, visitors and members face no discipline for political views, unless they violate membership vows or disturb the peace. In contrast, church officers (e.g., elders) receive closer scrutiny for confessional fidelity. The committee urges presbyteries to prioritize gospel unity, spiritual renewal, and charitable discourse over political purity tests. While I appreciate this sentiment, more specificity on these issues is still needed. Hopefully this effort will be expanded in future versions of the report.

PCA officers must subscribe to the 1788 American standards of the Westminster Confession. These prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored church, government preference for one denomination and the use of the state to suppress heresies and blasphemies. The government has a duty to protect all religious assemblies and persons without distinction. 

Analysis and Implications

This is a partial report, with more anticipated in the future. A full report with appendices is expected later. In the meantime, this report will no doubt spur further debate. I hope the committee continues refining it in light of ongoing dialogue.

So far, the authors are striking a balanced tone and emphasizing a lot of the major issues. It affirms robust Christian citizenship while rejecting both progressive secularism and the more radical, ethnic-based versions of Christian nationalism. Its clarity on confessional boundaries, strong stance against racism and Kinism, and repeated call to keep the gospel central are significant strengths.

By anchoring itself in the 1788 standards, the authors are guarding against importing 17th-century European models into pluralistic America. Some readers might critique that strategy. Others are likely to critique the report for not going far enough in condemning certain populist expressions (e.g., MAGA).

While this document will serve as a helpful guardrail in PCA churches, I think it also provides some wise and biblical guidance beyond that. It encourages thoughtful political engagement without allowing politics to become the driving force of the gospel or a source of inappropriate division. In an age of online outrage and tribalism, this document models the kind of careful, charitable reasoning the church desperately needs.

Ultimately, the Christian's hope rests not in any political arrangement but in the advancing kingdom of Jesus Christ. Political theology matters, but gospel proclamation matters more.