Could the Presbyterian Church in America be an Established Church?

At its recent June 2025 52^nd General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) passed an overture setting forth a committee on Christian Nationalism. Overtures are proposals to amend the Book of Church Order (BCO), a part of the church’s constitution, and can be submitted by any member of a PCA Presbytery.

In a recent issue of Providence, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Covenant College Dr. Philip Bunn pointed to the delineated reasons for this overture. First, there is a question over whether PCA ministers who embrace the original Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) view of the civil magistrate must “take an exception” to the American form of the WCF adopted by the PCA. Historically, the Westminster Confession of Faith taught that the civil magistrate has authority to support true religion and to suppress blasphemy. However, the American Presbyterian revision weakened that language, leading to the current PCA confession.

Furthermore, there is discussion over whether the original WCF is “Christian Nationalist” and the relationship between “Christian Nationalism” and “Ethno-Nationalism.” These, among issues, have “caused confusion, division, and dissension even among the congregants of PCA churches and affected PCA pastors and officers.”  

In the wake of this overture, PCA Pastor George Sayour, state minister to Florida, recently interviewed Presbycast podcast co-host Brad Isbell on Christian Nationalism and the PCA. Why is this discussion about the PCA and Christian nationalism important? As Bunn noted in Providence, “the questions raised by this committee, and by proponents of Christian Nationalism more generally, are related to a broader ongoing conversation within intellectual Protestantism about retrieval of historic Reformed thought, a project of ‘Ressourcement’ about which much has been and continues to be written.” 

Isbell, a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, defined Christian nationalism as “not any one thing.” He elaborated on what he agreed with in the movement: “Being a patriotic American who wishes they saw a lot more in the way of Christian values and morality in society and in the government, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m even friends with establishmentarians, those who wish that the Presbyterian Church in America was the official religion of the United States of America. There’s a principled position there and there’s a historical position.”

However, while he defended some elements of Christian Nationalism, Isbell indicated that he disagreed with what he calls “the extreme elements.”

After their introduced discussion on the Christian nationalist landscape, Sayour questioned Isbell on an important issue raised by the overture: namely, the tension between the PCA’s support of the American WCF and those who hold to the original form of the WCF: “There’s plenty of guys that agree with the original standards. Do you believe that they are outside the bounds of our confession? So our confessional agreements in the PCA, if they’re in agreement with the original standards on what the magistrate is allowed or charged to do…what in…the larger catechism would they have to take issue with if they believe in an established church for instance?”

Isbell suggested that it depends how dogmatically these individuals hold and teach their beliefs, “How do they view people who disagree with them? I mean thinking they were right to have the view that they had in the 1600s and thinking it must be the case today are two different things.”

While Isbell suggested one may defensibly affirm Christian nationalism, there is still the question of whether the Christian nationalist’s view of establishmentarianism would be permissible in practice. Sayour questioned Isbell on this point: “Would you agree that in history and in time it could be okay [to have an established church]?” Isbell responded with an unequivocal no. He indicated how the original WCF enabled governments to call church councils. However, Isbell described how these provisions were simply practical arrangements tied to their historical settings and therefore not of current practical import. Isbell pointed to how this establishmentarianism has historically resulted in negative consequences: “My question is what was the experience of every established church since time immemorial? All the state churches in Europe were established … the Church of Scotland as an Orthodox church didn’t last more than about 200 years … Establishment is no great help to the Church.”

On Isbell’s view, establishmentarianism was never permissible. But what then is the Christian’s socio-political role? Sayour pressed Isbell on this question: “is your point simply, well you’re not responsible for Christians in the country you’re just responsible for your denomination?” Isbell replied in affirmation of the Christian’s primary duty to their church, “No I’m church first. I think the only hope for any place is the local church. That’s where it all starts….Should Christians try to reform those places [hostile to Christianity]. Yes. But what they really should [do] is try to plant more churches and convert more people.”

Sayour pushed back some, arguing that it is compatible for Christians to pursue conversions while playing a stronger political role through imposing laws reflecting Christian values. He referenced prominent Christian nationalist Stephen Wolf: “[Wolf’s] whole project is on the basis of nature. It’s not based on the basis of special revelation. He’s not in the postmillennial camp.” Isbell responded in criticism of Wolf, highlighting the primacy of the Church’s Great Commission over political renewal, “when I pressed [Wolf] he said, “Well it’s just a theory. It’s just an ideal.” Well we don’t need theories or ideals. We need the church to do what the church is supposed to do, which is to proclaim the gospel and to teach and to baptize. And then if God blesses that and the country changes radically, that’s great.”

Isbell concluded with thoughts on the implications of Christian nationalism on Gospel proclamation:  “But if I have a doctrine that makes it hard for someone not like me and from somewhere else to hear the gospel, there’s a good chance there’s something wrong with that position. And there’s a lot of that in the Christian nationalist movements.”

Ultimately, as Isbell noted, the Church’s first role is Gospel proclamation. Given Christian nationalism’s potential threats to this effort, and the PCA’s prominent role in the American Christian landscape, Christians in our country would be wise to heed this ongoing dialogue to faithfully steward their biblical responsibility to Church and state.

More from IRD:

Christian Zionism, Antisemitism & Christian Realism

The West Will Not Save You: C.S. Lewis and the Hope Beyond Civilization