I am not asking the committee to settle every debate. Church history shows debates will always continue. But I do ask they present the live debates honestly, acknowledging the strength of the contextual adjustment reading, and draw clearer distinctions in the ordo amoris section. Our presbyteries can exercise discernment in good faith subscription, but only if they are not backed into a binding interpretation of what the report itself admits is a spectrum of possible permissions. It also needs clearer guidance on what counts as sinful “preferential treatment” versus legitimate preference in its proper application.

“It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith… yet they may err, and many have erred.” (WCF 31.2 & 3)

Overture 47 led the 52nd General Assembly to form the Ad Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism in 2025. In June of 2026, the committee released their partial report, extending the deadline until 2027 for a full report. I am grateful for their labor. The committee has served the church well by providing details regarding a rather hot topic within the Reformed Church. It speaks with a pastoral tone, gives clear condemnation of the sin of partiality, and reminds us of our Gospel priority.

Yet I am left with a few questions that I trust can still be addressed by the committee. These questions, which others have also raised, ask whether the care shown in some areas of the partial report matches the care shown elsewhere in the report.

For the sake of brevity, I will ask only two of those questions in this article.

First, did the 1788 revisions of the Westminster Standards represent a theological correction of earlier Reformed doctrine on the civil magistrate, or were they primarily a contextual adjustment made to fit colonial American circumstances that preserved the Standards’ core commitments to public piety? While the report illustrates both interpretations, it appears to jump to conclusions on one side and then treats that conclusion as binding.

Second, I ask for clarity on how the denial of “preferential treatment of one’s own ethnic group ahead of any other” (p. 2710) squares with the report’s strong affirmations of natural bonds of kinship, peoplehood, and cultural inheritances.

I raise these two questions in good faith as a man who loves the PCA. I believe that small compromises can quietly lead to larger drifts from scriptural fidelity. My desire is greater clarity to serve the peace and purity of the church. I do not want to jump to premature conclusions, but I ask these questions in the hope the committee will reconsider some of its wording and provide further clarification.

1788 Revisions, Religious Pluralism, and the Civil Magistrate

The committee rightly establishes that the 1788 edition of the Westminster Standards is binding on officers in the PCA. The changes to WCF 23.3 were deliberate and clearly addressed the dilemma American Presbyterians faced.

But the report claims a single position as binding, even while acknowledging a “spectrum of permissible positions”. Were the 1788 revisions theological correction or were they simply contextual adjustment? The Divines labored for nearly a decade and provided scripture proofs. I do not doubt their sincerity in what they wrote as biblical and derived from good and necessary consequence. In the same way, the colonial Presbyterians faced a very different reality: a republic with multiple Christian denominations. They understood “religion” and “faith” as referring specifically to Christianity, not our modern view of “religious liberty” in a very secular and pluralistic society. I do not doubt their belief either.

The question the report itself raises is whether the 1788 revisers sought to correct earlier doctrine or simply adjust the Standards to their new context? The committee fairly presents both possibilities. It cites the colonial context (p. 2716) and acknowledges “the seriousness and good faith of both readings” (p. 2717).

Yet the committee later leans strongly on the correctional reading. It rightly states “[a]n officer who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies, reform corruptions in worship, or call ecclesiastical synods, holds a view that is directly contrary” to the 1788 Standards (p. 2721). I agree this goes beyond the 1788 text. However, the report previously acknowledged robust views within the 1788 edition itself, noting that “both versions affirm the magistrate’s duty to promote true religion” (p. 2717) and the 1788 text retains “the general principle that the magistrate should govern in a manner consistent with Christian piety” (p. 2717).

Later in that same paragraph, the committee states they do “not attempt to resolve this question definitively,” but note that these provisions create “legitimate space within the PCA’s constitutional framework for a range of views on the magistrate’s positive relationship to religion” (Ibid).

However, the committee also states the 1788 revisions were “intentionally revised… to correct what they regarded as an error” (p. 2717). Yet the colonials did not remove every 1646 reference to the civil magistrate. WCF 23.1-2 remained unchanged, declaring the magistrates are ordained for “God’s own glory” and must “maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws.” WLC 108 was retained, calling us to oppose, and “according to each one’s own place and calling” remove false worship and monuments of idolatry. WLC 191 was also left unchanged stating that the church is to be “countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Brothers laboring in the Reformed tradition have made arguments for the contextual adjustment view, alluded to in the committee’s report (p. 2717). Works such as Reformed Christian Politics and the book by James Baird, King of Kings are two recent examples I know of. The committee itself recognizes that these positions fall within legitimate space of the PCA’s constitutional framework (p. 2717).

I find myself asking: After stating the debate is within legitimate constitutional framework and that they will not attempt a resolution, why does the committee then resolve it with binding language? If both views are legitimate, why does the guidance tilt so strongly one way?

I am asking the committee to reconsider its conclusion. They should maintain the admitted “spectrum of permissible positions” (p. 2708) and clearly distinguish it from their binding conclusions. An officer can hold the contextual adjustment view while fully denying the PCA Constitution “allows the civil magistrate to favor in law any denomination of Christians above the rest, has the right to call synods, ensure orthodoxy in the church, or to order worship (p. 2709).”

I worry this report can unintentionally open the door to more liberal views religious pluralism that treat all worldly faiths as essentially equal. We Christians know Jesus is the only way to the Father and the Bible is God’s only true revelation. We cannot treat all worldly faiths as equal to Christianity. This conviction should lead to the firm magistrates duty to the one true God.

Ordo Amoris, Kinism, Cultural Particularity, and Objective Truth

Affirmation #7 shows the committee rightly recognizes God’s ordering of humanity into families, peoples, and nations. It affirms Christians may rightly love their own families, communities, and cultural inheritances as gifts of God’s providential care. Affirmation #8 also rightly retrieves the Augustinian concept of order amoris: Christians cannot love all people equally, to the same degree, and in the same way, at all times. Loves are rightly ordered by proximity and Scripture.

The committee rightly denies racial hierarchy and Kinism understood as intrinsic superiority by blood/race. Acts 17:26 and Galatians 3:28 are foundational truths regarding our creation and our salvation.

Yet the committee’s denial that ordo amoris provides a warrant for “preferential treatment of one’s own ethnic group ahead of any other” (p. 2710) creates more tension than clarity. This tension shows up in practice.

The report allows Korean-language presbyteries and churches as sensible accommodations for shared language and culture. This is a clear form of preference in service of ministry. One could reasonably conclude this also permits affinity groups as prudent accommodations for people who share common cultural bonds. So why does a similar concern for cultural cohesion and inheritance elsewhere risk being treated with suspicion?

I want to be clear, I fully believe the committee meant the denial of preferential treatment as providing greater care, compassion, or effort to one’s own ethnicity over another. If a man was to provide monetary aid to another who is of his same ethnicity, but deny it to one of different ethnicity, that would be sinful, preferential treatment (James 2:1-9).

But I argue a Korean-language congregation that prioritizes its own language and customs for worship and fellowship is exercising “preferential treatment.” An example of this would be a non-Korean speaking visitor will be treated with full Christian respect, yet the congregation does not change its entire service into English. A reasonable person would not expect that. Would this not qualify as “preferential treatment of one’s own ethnic group ahead of any other”?

I understand this is an extreme example, but I use it to show “preferential treatment” that I do not believe is using ordo amoris to claim one’s own ethnic group above any other.

Scripture does not require us to treat every culture as equally virtuous. It declares one objective truth: the Lordship of Christ and the moral law that applies to all peoples (Romans 1). The truth confronts sins of every culture, whether western individualism or tribal exclusion. The Gospel does not seek to erase every element of a culture, but to reform it according to God’s Word and bring its people into unity under Christ.

I worry the current wording on “preferential treatment” could be twisted to undermine legitimate cultural preference, congregation proclivity, or natural family bonds. Again, I do not believe the committee intended this. I am simply asking for sharper lines so that natural loves affirmed in the report are not inadvertently crushed so that application remains consistent across the denomination.

Broader Implications and Recommendations for Unity

These two areas of need for clarity can have real consequences. They can shape officer examinations, congregational teaching, and how our churches engage the culture. Rather than clear guardrails, this partial report risks creating fault lines.

I worry modern views about religious and cultural pluralism have influenced the report in ways that stretch beyond the historic meaning of the Westminster Standards. Little compromises, however unintended, will risk larger drifts from our doctrines and Standards.

I am not asking the committee to settle every debate. Church history shows debates will always continue. But I do ask they present the live debates honestly, acknowledging the strength of the contextual adjustment reading, and draw clearer distinctions in the ordo amoris section. Our presbyteries can exercise discernment in good faith subscription, but only if they are not backed into a binding interpretation of what the report itself admits is a spectrum of possible permissions. It also needs clearer guidance on what counts as sinful “preferential treatment” versus legitimate preference in its proper application.

I humbly ask the committee to consider these concerns as they work on the appendices and prepare the full report next year.

Conclusion

The Ad Interim Committee on Christian Nationalism has begun an important work for the PCA. The questions surrounding Christian Nationalism are real, concerns on all sides sincere, and the potential for damage in either direction is genuine. I am grateful for their labor.

After all, our own Confession reminds us that “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith… yet they may err, and many have erred” (WCF 31.2 & 3). I pray the final report, building on this good start, will provide us great clarity and not bind consciences beyond what Scripture and our Standards require. May it equip us all for faithful witness in our day and age.

Let us hold fast to what is clear in our Standards while pressing honestly on what is debated. Let us diligently seek good faith subscriptions with integrity. And may we not allow the historic and widely accepted understandings of our confession to be forced into a modern and secular view.

I pray this committee continues their great work, seeking the Lord’s wisdom and grace as they address this controversial topic with charity and clarity.

Let the kingdom of God come and His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Soli Deo gloria!

Isaac Martin is a deacon at Lebanon Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Winnsboro, South Carolina.