On the internet, I am a nobody. I do not think of myself as anything more than a local pastor who is trying to be faithful in the discharge of his duty. I like to write, so I do that as well. But most everything I write has come out of or serves my pastoral labors first. This is one of the reasons I was content to let the steady stream of posts from Richard Ackerman, aka the “Redeemed Zoomer” (RZ), slide. He is a young man who is using social media to build a sizeable platform and sometimes has some interesting things to say.
I became aware of his work not through YouTube or his many online debates. I became aware of him because he used a picture of me in one of his posts, and it was forwarded to me by some college students. I am not sure how or why I was chosen for this particular post, but it put RZ on my radar.
Like I said, I am somewhat baffled that a picture from my church’s website was pulled as the modern notion of “Protestant Retreatism.” The college students in my congregation told me it meant I was a celebrity pastor now, though there have been no residual checks arriving in my mailbox. Further, no one who knows me in real life would use the word “retreatism” or “retreatist” to describe me. That said, being placed side by side with J. Gresham Machen gave me a rather satisfactory fifteen seconds of fame.
I should preface all this by saying that I do not hate RZ’s Reconquista desires. To say the PCUSA is a church in catastrophic theological decline is putting it mildly. The PCUSA is a dumpster fire of a church. This year alone they implemented an LGBTQIA+ pastor directory and asked congregations to state their willingness to receive such a shepherd. They issued a gender-affirming care resolution, affirming gender transitions as medically necessary for all individuals seeking them, regardless of age. They also rejected a motion to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, stating that it would mask historical harms associated with colonial history. However one might feel about some of these things, it is clear that the decline continues. The headlines and publicity that come out of their general assemblies remind me of the words of Westminster Confession 25.5: “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will” (emphasis added).
That said, what do we do with RZ’s claims about schism? I want to examine his claims and then test them. If the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America are founded on sinful schism, that is something to consider seriously. Schism is a serious sin against the visible unity, peace, and communion of Christ’s church. The seriousness of schism is precisely why the word must be used carefully. “Schism” is not merely a stronger word for disagreement, nor can it be attached automatically to whichever party formally leaves an institution. It is a moral and theological judgment: the charge that someone has sinfully ruptured the visible communion of Christ’s body.
There is something admirable in the concern behind RZ’s argument. Modern Christians often treat churches as religious vendors, changing their membership over preferences, personalities, politics, or convenience. Congregations divide over matters that should have been addressed through patience and charity. None of this should be defended.
But concern for unity does not settle the definition of schism. False teachers can divide a church without leaving it. Church courts can rupture communion by punishing faithfulness and protecting error. A denomination may preserve its name, property, and legal succession while abandoning the doctrine and order it was established to maintain. Before asking whether Machen and the founders of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church were schismatics, we must ask a more basic question: What is schism?
The Unity Christ Gives His Church
Christ has one church. He prayed that his people would be one (John 17:20–23). Paul describes the church as one body with many members (1 Cor 12:12–27), and he exhorts Christians to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” because there is “one body and one Spirit,” “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:3–5). The church’s unity is not optional, and its visible fragmentation should grieve us.
This unity is created by Christ through the Spirit. Believers are joined to Christ and therefore to one another. Yet this reality must have visible expression through confession, worship, sacraments, fellowship, discipline, and love. It is not enough to answer denominational division by saying that all Christians are invisibly united. Paul calls them to humility, patience, and peace (Phil 2:1–4).
Still, Ephesians 4 prevents us from reducing unity to institutional continuity. Paul’s “one body” cannot be separated from “one Lord” and “one faith.” Christian unity has doctrinal content. The church is not united merely because Christians remain beneath the same institutional roof. It is united as its members together confess, worship, and obey the same Lord.
Scripture Describes More Than One Kind of Division
The clearest New Testament treatment of schism appears in 1 Corinthians. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for organizing themselves around rival leaders: “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and “I follow Christ” (1 Cor 1:10–13). Their jealousy and strife revealed that they were behaving according to the flesh (1 Cor 3:1–9).
The Corinthians had not formed rival denominations. They were still one congregation, but pride, personalities, and party spirit divided them. A person may therefore remain institutionally inside a church while behaving schismatically. Formal departure is not the essence of schism.
Scripture also identifies false teaching as a cause of division. Paul warns the Romans about those who “cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom 16:17). The divisive people are those introducing doctrine contrary to apostolic teaching. Paul likewise warned the Ephesian elders that men would arise “speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30). Titus was told to warn a divisive person and then have nothing more to do with him (Titus 3:10–11).
This complicates the claim that the party who separates is necessarily the schismatic. Paul does not accuse the orthodox of schism because they avoid false teachers. He identifies those who depart from apostolic doctrine as the causes of division. The person who leaves the room may not be the person who broke the fellowship.
Scripture sometimes requires separation. Paul tells believers to avoid those who teach contrary doctrine (Rom 16:17). The Corinthians were to remove the sexually immoral man from their fellowship (1 Cor 5:11–13). Timothy was told to avoid those who possess the appearance of godliness while denying its power (2 Tim 3:5). John warned believers not to receive anyone who did not bring the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9–11).
These passages do not directly establish when a new denomination may be formed. They establish the narrower point that separation cannot be inherently sinful because Scripture sometimes requires it. The moral question is not simply whether separation occurred, but whether it was faithful, necessary, proportionate, and biblically warranted.
Not Every Ecclesiastical Separation Is the Same
Several kinds of separation must be distinguished. First, there is factionalism within a congregation. Members may remain formally united while dividing the church through rivalry, suspicion, slander, personality cults, or party spirit.
Second, there is a breach of brotherly fellowship. Christians may refuse love, cooperation, or communion while technically belonging to the same institution. No new denomination has been formed, but Christ’s visible peace has still been wounded.
Third, there is separation from a particular congregation. Leaving one congregation for another is not necessarily separation from Christ’s church. It may be wise or foolish, orderly or disorderly, faithful or sinful. A member may leave to evade discipline or because faithful preaching, worship, or pastoral care is no longer available. Motive, process, available remedies, and the church subsequently joined all matter.
Fourth, there is withdrawal from or division of a denomination. This is more consequential because it breaks established ecclesiastical relationships. Yet a denomination is not identical with the universal church. Such a departure may be hasty and sinful. It may also result from confessional abandonment, unlawful discipline, constitutional disorder, or the corruption of the church’s ministry. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) helps here.
The visible church consists of those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children (WCF 25.2). No single denomination is therefore identical with the visible universal church. Particular churches are “more or less pure” according to their doctrine, ordinances, and worship (WCF 25.4), and some may degenerate so far as to become no churches of Christ at all (WCF 25.5). Institutional continuity matters, but it is not the only kind of ecclesiastical continuity recognized by the Reformed faith.
Finally, there is separation from the universal church itself. This is the gravest category. It involves rejecting communion with Christ’s church as church, perhaps by denying all other true churches or claiming exclusive possession of salvation. Leaving a denomination is not necessarily leaving the universal church, just as remaining in a denomination is not necessarily preserving catholic unity.
A working definition, then, might be this: “Schism” is the culpable disruption of the visible communion of Christ’s church through factionalism, sectarianism, unlawful separation, divisive teaching, or the corruption of doctrine, worship, and discipline that makes faithful communion impossible. It is not always the case that the body who leaves is the schismatic.
It is true that the modern church suffers from a casual attitude toward division. Christians leave too readily, and congregations divide over personalities and preferences. We must not baptize impatience, ambition, or consumerism. But the opposite error is also possible. We may identify Christ’s church too closely with an inherited institution and assume that the party retaining the name, property, and governing machinery necessarily represents ecclesiastical continuity. Those who introduce false doctrine, corrupt worship, abuse discipline, or exclude faithful ministers may be the true authors of division, even when they never leave the institution.
We cannot determine guilt merely by asking who formally departed. We must ask who departed from the doctrine and order of Christ, who made continued communion impossible, whether lawful remedies remained available, and whether those who withdrew continued as a true church under the Word of God. That leads to the next question. Must faithful Christians remain in a deeply corrupt church until they are formally excommunicated? Or can a church’s actions make separation necessary before it completes the final act of expulsion?
©Everett Henes. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Everett Henes
Everett Henes (MDiv, ThM, DMin) is pastor of Hillsdale Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he has served since 2008. He is husband to Kimberly and father of five children and grandfather of five (and counting!). He teaches US History and Philosophy of History for Jackson College in Michigan. He is currently working towards a PhD in Humanities with a focus in US Religious History from Faulkner University. In his spare time, he enjoys competing in powerlifting and strongman and teaching homeschoolers Taekwondo.
More by Everett Henes ›