That PCA report on Christian Nationalism, June 8th,

2026.

Introduction.

So last Thursday, the first part of the PCA study report on Christian nationalism dropped.

The following is what I tweeted at the time, and so here we are. Next Monday has a riven, if that's the word I'm looking for.

The kudos first.

Before getting to my promised awkward questions, let me start by saying what was good about

the report.

And there was much that was good, if we restrict ourselves to various points in isolation.

But depending on how the follow-up Q&A goes, we might find ourselves trying to deal with

a conflicted version of Bunyan's Mr. Facing both ways. We shall see. But here are the things that I took

as being good as far as it goes, and a sign of some progress. One point in particular was a real

breakthrough. First, they recognize that there are various Christian nationalisms out there, and they

made a note of it multiple times. There's no central CN headquarters. There's no official newsletter.

There's not a single unified position, page 2721, line 25. They did not throw every political

conservative in the PCA into a huge pot in order to melt them all down into a dismissible

unit. As a consequence, the reports showed that there were multiple ways in which a principled

Christian nationalist could be a member in good standing in the PCA, and the same thing goes for

church officers. If such persons were committed to being good churchmen, then they were within the pale.

There were, of course, some forms of CN that they said were not consistent with life in the PCA,

e.g. Kinnism. And they also said that an officer who subscribed to the original Westminster

confession on the civil magistrate would have an obligation to inform his Presbytery that he was

...