My position is derived from understanding the reason for the change to WLC 109 and the omitting of any change whatsoever to WLC 108. In WLC 109 regarding what sins are forbidden in the second commandment, the original version (1646) said that “tolerating a false religion” is breaking the second commandment.  Our American forefathers removed that phrase and thus the argument is that they sanctioned the toleration of false religions—not the approval of false religions, but they sanctioned the freedom of public worship of false religions.

Recently, I listened to a Baptist preacher give the invocation on the first day of the 250^th Liberty Celebration in Washington, D.C. He gave thanks to God that America was a place where people of every religion were free to worship their own god.  That’s one reason I am not a Baptist.  Politicians and theologians call his views an expression of the doctrine of “principled pluralism.” Now, with the PCA Ad-Interim Partial Report on Christian Nationalism, Presbyterians have joined the Baptist bandwagon, and eagerly defend what is still called “principled pluralism.”

My contention is that the term “principled pluralism” is no longer functional or valid. The demographics of America have changed dramatically. A more appropriate term is “principled polytheism.” Principled pluralism originally described the belief that all Christian denominations were free to worship publicly in America. Keep in mind that we are talking about public worship and not private worship.  Religion in the minds of our early fathers was synonymous with Christianity.  Principled polytheism is the view that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., have the right under the U.S. Constitution to worship freely and publicly in the United States.

What did our Presbyterian forefathers believe about “principled polytheism” when they revised the Westminster Standards in 1788?  A case has been made that because they amended the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) sections 20.4; 23.3;31.1; Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 109; and deleted the original 31.2, they sanctioned what I more properly call principled polytheism. The case has also been made that the PCA BCO Preliminary Principles support the same. They continue to argue that the new section of WCF 23.3 supports “principled polytheism.”

I respectfully disagree on the basis of the teaching of the Westminster Standards itself.  My position is derived from understanding the reason for the change to WLC 109 and the omitting of any change whatsoever to WLC 108.

In WLC 109 regarding what sins are forbidden in the second commandment, the original version (1646) said that “tolerating a false religion” is breaking the second commandment.  Our American forefathers removed that phrase and thus the argument is that they sanctioned the toleration of false religions—not the approval of false religions, but they sanctioned the freedom of public worship of false religions.

It is my contention that in their minds “religions” was a reference to various denominations of Christianity such as the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.  False religions included the Roman Catholic Church, which had been considered a religion of idolatry since the Reformation in Europe. It had a noticeable presence in Colonial America.  It could also have included the Quakers.

Secondly, since our Presbyterian forefathers in 1788 were careful enough to amend one phrase in WLC 109, then they surely did not overlook or become sloppy about WLC 108.  Presbyterians love scrutiny.  They always have.  They left WLC 108 there on purpose.

In WLC 108 they did not delete anything.  Notice that it says that part of the duties required in the second commandment are “disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”  Notice that they did not use the word “religion” here.  Remember, that was a reference to Christianity.  They used terms like “false worship,” and “monuments of idolatry.”

These men decided that houses of worship used by Roman Catholics and Quakers should not be dismantled by the civil magistrate.  Religious freedom was extended beyond traditional Protestantism.  They did not want to repeat the mistakes made in Europe that resulted in the 30-Years War.

Was principled pluralism allowed in our Standards in 1788?  Yes, as long as one understands that it was a pluralism of various denominations and Christian sects including the Roman Catholic Church.  Was principled polytheism sanctioned?  No, not at all. The Civil Magistrate had the responsibility to dismantle public monuments dedicated to such false worship.

The Ad-Interim Committee Partial Report on Christian Nationalism avoided crucial questions like I have just presented.  I’m not a young man on X who uses offensive and coarse language as those described in the Ad-Interim Report.  I am an old gray-haired man cautious with my language who has been around since the end of World War II.  I just happen to think that these young upstarts are seeing things that the Boomer generation cannot see.  I pray that the Ad-Interim Committee may “dig deeper” and that issues like this will show up in their 2027 Report. Otherwise, the PCA may continue to lose some of her brightest young men.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.