Statutory Construction for PCA Commissioners

For members of the Presbyterian Church in America, June 24, 2025, marks the start of this year's General Assembly, the high point of the PCA's ecclesiastical calendar. The GA will consider 49 overtures (proposals/motions). You can read a summary of all of the overtures here. I'm writing this post in connection with four of them: 3, 4, 47, and 48.

The theme of Christian Nationalism animates each of these overtures. The first three ask essentially for the GA to appoint a study committee with a broad remit to evaluate, analyze, and report back to the 2026 General Assembly on topics of Christian Nationalism, "Moscow [Idaho] Theology", Reconstructionism, and similar viewpoints. Such a report would, specifically, address whether any or all of these viewpoints are inconsistent with the confessional standards of the PCA.

Overture 48 asks only for the appointment of a committee to draft a pastoral letter "applying the doctrine of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America to questions of Christian citizenship and church-state relations."

What's the kerfuffle? For those who haven't been living under a rock for the past decade, some form or other of Christian Nationalism has been a rallying cry for a small but very public segment of the American Chrisitan Right. Even more vocal than its critics are folks in the legacy media who find a Christian Nationalist under every non-Progressive policy they don't like. For them, CN ≈ MAGA 🡢 Trump.

There are, of course, folks who provide a defined version of CN and a cogent argument for it. While I have posted on the topic of nationalism (here, here, and here), I have largely foregone CN because, frankly, I believe it will be of only modest long-term significance in America.

In any event, in this post my concern is very narrow. In 1788 the Synod of the American Presbyterian Churches revised the original 1646 version of the Westminster Confession of Faith in several respects. The principal field of revision was Chapter 23 of the WCF, "Of the Civil Magistrate." In particular, subchapter 3. Both versions are precise but written with long sentences featuring colons, semicolons, and commas. I'm using this July 2024 piece by Rev. Kevin DeYoung for a representation of the differences:

Historic Text (1646) Chapter XXIII Of the Civil Magistrate The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to [i] take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, [ii] that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; [iii] that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; [iv] all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and [v] all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

American Revision (1788) Chapter 23 Of the Civil Magistrate Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to [i] protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates [ii] to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

At the outset, the original version of the WCF and the American revision concur word for word on the disabilities of the civil magistrate. The American revision expands on this disability mid-way through when it adds that "no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians."

By contrast, the 1646 text prescribed five affirmative duties for the civil magistrate: (1) to preserved unity in the Church, (2) to ensure that the truth of God is preserved "pure and entire," (3) to suppress all blasphemies and heresies, (4) to reform all corruptions and abuses in worship, (5) to require that all other clear ordinances of God be observed. Two other powers--not duties--of the civil magistrate included (1) calling synods and (2) ensuring that the decisions reached by such a synod were "according to the mind of God." In short, five duties, two powers.

The five specific duties disappeared with the 1788 American revisions. They were replaced with a duty to "protect the church of our common Lord" yet "without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest." In other words, disestablishment. And a downstream duty to protect all people and institutions in the exercise of their religious duties.

More specifically, and wearing my lawyer's hat, the deletion of a series of "musts" from among the duties of the civil magistrate means not only does the magistrate no longer have the affirmative duties prescribed in1646 but no longer has even the discretionary power to do so. The adverbial phrase, "as nursing fathers" is not an independent source of power but simply describes the affective manner in which the magistrate should provide the protections noted above.

This conclusion follows from (1) the lack of reference to (discretionary) powers in the 1788 revised WCF and (2) a rule of construction (i.e., the rule by which English, Colonial, and early American Republic courts would determine the legal meaning of a legal instrument (like a statute, contract, will, etc.) to the effect that the meaning of a subsequent legal instrument is determined in light of the changes from the prior instrument. (This rule of construction would have been common knowledge in both 1646 and 1788.)

In short, omissions (silences) speak; in other words, there is no gap to be filled by implication. In yet other words, the five specific duties of the magistrate in 1646 are affirmatively prohibited by their omission in 1788.

None of this, however, should be understood as prescribing a naked public square. For the men gathered in 1788, the truths of the Christian religion remained public truths. The disestablishment of churches did not entail the eradication of Christianity from either public discourse or as a ground for legislation as well as public policy. The changes of 1788 did, however, make it impossible for a teaching or ruling elder to teach to the contrary. Whether such an office bearer may hold privately to the doctrines of 1646 is beyond the scope of this post.