Schism And The Redeemed Zoomer (Part 1): Protestant Retreatism?

by on August 11, 2026 | 17 Comments

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.

picture1

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.

You can find this whole series here. 

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Everett Henes
    Author Image

    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 ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


17 comments

  1. Dr. Clark,

    Responding to you here.

    I can count about 4 URC ministers and about a dozen OPC ministers I know who do not agree with the confessions regarding 2nd, 4th, or both.

    It is an interesting phenomena because in the PCA at least the exceptions are usually stated outright. OPC especially not so much

    Reply ↓

  2. A great discussion. On a somewhat unrelated subject, how should Presbyterians within and without the congregation have handled a Diotrephes of 3 John 9 ff., who controlled the levers of power in a congregation?

    Reply ↓

    • Reid,

      The first thing is not to elevate Diotrephes to a position he didn’t have. Diotrephes was being a pain, but that not new in the apostolic church. Paul wrote 4 letters (probably) to the Corinthians, of which we have two. The principal cause of the letters was the self-described “hyper apostles,” (super apostles) who demeaned Paul’s apostolic authority and who contradicted him. Paul doesn’t describe them as controlling the levers of power in the congregation, though they certainly wanted to do that.

      Ideally, when there are men like Diotrephes or the “Super Apostles” in a congregation, they should be addressed by the consistory/session. If that fails, the regional assembly should address it. This is one benefit of having a connectional church polity. The broader church is meant to come to the aid of a struggling church or a church beset by people like Diotrephes. I’ve seen quite a few of them. They are typically, speaking figuratively, small men who take advantage of the kindness of people to assert themselves in an effort to turn the church into a little personal fiefdom. They should be confronted and called to repentance. If they refuse, then they should be placed under the 1st step of discipline, suspended from the table. If, after a reasonable period of time, they refuse the overtures of the church to repent, then they should be excommunicated, as Paul instructed the Corinthians and as our Lord instructed all the churches in Matt 18. The hope is that the Diotrephes of the world will come to see their sin and their need for a Savior.

      Reply ↓

  3. The biggest issue I have seen with people debating Redeemed Zoomer in these YouTube streams is that his interlocutors are often driven by the limitations of the format to ignore the practical wisdom of Proverbs 26:5 in their efforts to put forward the best representation of their own views. This leads to a situation where RZ’s audience feels content to claim victory in the debate, because his arbitrary and erroneous standards were not specifically refuted.

    I suspect RZ will rely heavily on the “according to historic Presbyterian standards” clause in the debate thesis. Much of his content (and his entire project) rests upon several assumptions that he has spent a great deal of time reinforcing for himself and his audience. Going into the debate, he (and his audience) will equate “historic Presbyterian standards” with his particular interpretation of passages in the writings of Rutherford and Baillie. They will also have their own arbitrary standards presupposed to justify the view that the PCUSA is the only “true” Presbyterian church in the United States.

    From what I have seen, if his specific assumptions are not addressed, he will simply dismiss his opponent’s points, and claim victory. Even if his opponent’s argument successfully undermines his entire view, he is so hyper-focused on “Rutherford and Baillie say X and that settles the issue” that he (and his audience) will simply ignore what was said and claim that no one ever addresses their points.

    I imagine part of this is driven by a preference for simplistic rules and easy explanations. This can be seen in the flowcharts and Instagram slides like the one above. The reasoning is superficial: “Why is the PCUSA dealing with the issues it is? Because conservatives were cowards and left.” Simple, straightforward, and lacking any attempt to understand the greater context or motivations involved.

    All of that to say, I will admit to being pessimistic about the long-term impact of this debate. If Pastor Henes spends his time making a nuanced case for why the OPC was justified in its founding, RZ can claim victory because his arbitrary standards weren’t met. If Pastor Henes spends his time refuting the misapplication of Rutherford and Baillie, and addressing the other assumptions in play, RZ can claim that even if he’s wrong in his interpretations, an adequate justification for the OPC wasn’t given, and thus he won the debate. If it is pointed out that longer articles exist going into more detail, the response might be “then why wasn’t that said in the debate?,” or perhaps simply “TLDR.”

    Perhaps this is ungracious of me to assume, but I’ve become less than confident in the usefulness of social media debates.

    Reply ↓

    • Sean,

      I have my doubts about debate in general. In this case, however, the value of the debate is less about what it might do for RZ and more about the help it might provide those who are willing to listen to the other side. Most of RZs followers have probably not read Machen or the history of the OPC and, to the degree RZ is their principal source of information and analysis, they may not be aware of a range of issues to which Everett will alert them. I’m hoping for a good outcome.

      Reply ↓

  4. Let’s avoid any accusations of schism and reduce the total number of denominations by one: join the PCA and the OPC together. OPC GA approved the offer from the PCA in the 8os, but the OPC Presbyteries rejected it.

    Time to revisit the issue and combine the reformed Presbyterian denominations to become more anti-schismatic.

    Reply ↓

    • Dean,

      I was around for these discussions, though not involved in them. As I understand/remember things, OPC wanted a negotiated merger and the PCA has only one mechanism for merger: joining and receiving. In other words, the PCA said, “here’s our offer, take it or leave it.” About 1/3 of the OPC did take it. Those were the self-described “New Life” churches who were “New School” in their theology, piety, and practice. They tended to be affected by the so-called Sonship theology, which downplayed the 3rd (normative) use of the law and other aspects of Reformed theology in favor of focusing on the doctrine of adoption. They were also much affected by the pragmatism of the church growth movement. The churches that stayed in the OPC tended to be more Old School, more confessional. So, it wasn’t mere stubbornness that kept the two from merging. There were substantive issues, which remain today.

      Reply ↓

    • Dean, you are at best, oversimplifying, and perhaps being simplistic.

      Is organic church union the only way “to become more anti-schismatic?” How about being members of a council of like-minded but not identical denominations? The OPC and PCA are already members of NAPARC, and within NAPARC, there are denominations considerably closer to each other than the OPC and PCA which choose, for a variety of reasons, to maintain their ecclesiastical identities while sharing formal pulpit and table fellowship — in other words, the two most important ways in which churches manifest that they agree that they both share the three marks of the true church.

      The Free Reformed and Heritage Reformed share a seminary and many Nadere Reformatie distinctives. The United Reformed and Canadian Reformed, likewise, have similar ecclesiastical histories, though 1944 and 1995 were certainly very different. A case can be made that if those two pairs of denominations don’t merge, a PCA and OPC merger would be far more problematic and would likely lead, not to one denomination, but to a very difficult split that might result in three denominations, not one.

      If the “ecumania” of the ecumenical movement of the 1900s taught us anything, it was that agreement to unite without agreement on what unites us leads to disaster.

      Dr. Clark is right about the “Joining and Receiving” process proposed by the PCA to the OPC. Rather than negotiate or discuss issues, the PCA said, “Join us.” Given the relative sizes of the OPC and PCA (and previously with the RPCES), it was patently obvious to everyone that “join us” meant abandoning many of the principles for which the OPC had been fighting for decades.

      In one way, the J&R worked. The OPC people who didn’t belong in the OPC left for the PCA, where in many cases they probably did belong. A good case can be made that it worked out well for the OPC to have the people leave who didn’t share its “mission and vision,” to use language that the “New Life” churches might appreciate.

      If we prioritize organic union above actually working together on church matters where churches do agree, we simply repeat the errors of the ecumenical movement of focusing on formalities and not on being a functioning church doing what churches are supposed to be doing based on shared agreement on what those things are that they should be doing.

      Reply ↓

      • As a PCA memeber, I’m open to a negotiated rejoining, albeit the particular issues would need to be seriously addressed by both. I appreciate the schismatic lessening efforts of NAPARC, even if they fail to be actually anti-schismatic by maintaining distinct denominations. I would make that joining offer open to all American members of NAPARC as well. It would be fruitful to explore joining again, as it’s been 40 years since the last serious discussions, and the issues should be rexamined. Maybe the gaps are no so wide as they once were, maybe one or both sides can demonstrate flexibility if appropriate. Who knows.

        Based on long term growth trends of the PCUSA and PCA, Ryan Burge estimates the PCA will become the largest American Presbyterian Denomination by 2040, so it would be great to seek more purity and peace among the reformed Presbyterian churches as we become “the mainline”, and see what the Lord may will.

        Let RZ do his reconquista. We can demonstrate an equally honorable effort to improve the Christian unity among American reformed Presbyterians. Maybe one day, Lord Willing, RZ will have turned the PCUSA around and we can all unite into a single faithful and orthodox Presbyterian Church of the USA!
        One can pray! Lol

        Reply ↓

        • Dean,

          You’re entitled to your opinion but to make any difference you need to change the PCA Book of Church Order and that’s not going to happen. If the PCA wanted a negotiated merger with the OPC it could happen. They like the J&R procedure. It puts them in the driver’s seat and they get absorb other groups rather than to consider making any changes to their vision.

          What most people don’t understand is that the PCA has always seen itself as the successor to the PCUS and, as such, as an inclusive mainline denomination. They aspire to be a mainline, big steeple (which symbolizes the prominent, large, downtown Presbyterian church) denomination.

          The OPC sees itself as a sideline denomination as do the URCs in North America. There are a few premillennialists still in the OPC but very few (if any) Dispensationalists. There are whole sessions in the PCA that have only a passing familiarity with the Westminster Confession. It is a commonplace in the PCA to dismiss the WCF on the 2nd and 4th commandments. Those who adhere to the WCF on these and other points are regarded as retrograde hardheads.

          The last time the PCA successfully disciplined a Federal Visionist the movement wasn’t even known as the Federal Vision (pre-2004). The PCA is not liberal but confessionalism is a minority movement in the PCA. The confessionalists and conservatives are winning at GA in recent years but are they winning on the ground, in the various presbyteries? The practical ethos in most of the PCA is “live and let live.”

          In other words, the PCA is committed practically to a level of inclusiveness that, as matter of principle, doesn’t exist in URCs or the OPC. There are no females leading worship in the URCs. I doubt that there are female worship leaders in the OPC. If it happened in the URCs it would become a matter of mutual correction. Is that true in the PCA?

          The obstacles are considerable. The realignment c. 1989 was a response to the PCAs J&R procedure. That relieved the pressure. There is no internal desire the OPC or the URCs to be absorbed by the PCA and to become minorities at presbytery and ignored by the pragmatic majority.

          I do what I can to help the confessionalists in the PCA. It’s more confessional than it was. I agree with Brad Isbell that the PCA is more confessional than it has ever been but that doesn’t mean that practically, functionally, most of the PCA is confessional.

          Update: I search the PCA BCO and did not find the language “joining and receiving” but it is the language that was used when the RPCES joined the PCA and it is the language used during the discussions with the OPC. It might be in another document published by their GA ecumenicity committee. The PCA website is not particularly use.

          Reply ↓

          • Evan,

            Those were the terms the PCA put to the OPC. I watched it happen. I’ve seen no indication that anything has changed. Further, the use of quotation marks in this context was not intended to signal that the process of joining and receiving was provisional or temporary. They used quotation marks, improperly in my opinion, to highlight the terms of the offer.

            It’s clear as one reads the Joint Statement that the PCA is saying to the RPCES and the OPC, “here’s our offer, take or leave it.” Notice that I used quotation marks. Those marks do not signal that the PCA used those words. This is a convention used to signal speech, even speech that did not actually occur.

          • Just wanted to point out

            –

            I have met many pastors and elders in both the URC and OPC who do not agree with the confessions regarding the 2nd and 4th commandment. It’s not a PCA only issue at all, from what I’ve seen just as prevalent in other denominations

          • Ben,

            Many? That’s a big claim. I’m dubious.

            I can’t speak to the private opinions of every minister in the URCNA, but there should not be any URCNA ministers who publicly deny the Heidelberg Catechism on the 2nd commandment and certainly no URCNA minister is allowed to take an exception to the confessions or to publish pictures of Christ. Any URCNA minister who published images of Christ would face correction in classis, or failing that, Synod.

            I used to know of one building in the URCNA that has 2nd commandment violation. I’m not sure if that’s true any longer.

Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.