Redeemed Zoomer & Presbyterians for the Kingdom - From Quixotic to Cultic

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I’ve been following RZ a lot. His videos are interesting and often helpful. I’ve been hopeful against hope that his movement could catch on and bring revival to the PCUSA.

Unfortunately he and many of his followers have been going down what I believe to be a very concerning path. It started when they went from encouraging non-mainline Presbyterians to join them in the PCUSA to calling any non-PCUSA denomination schismatic.

They misinterpret Robert Baillie and Samuel Rutherford to say that unless you are excommunicated, you can never leave a true church without being guilty of the sin of schism. And then they say that “schism is worse than heresy” and his followers begun to openly say that non-mainline Christians are “not part of the invisible church” - basically, we’re all going to hell because we don’t want to submit to women elders or be in communion with Christ-deniers and various forms of sodomites.

They are full of angry, short-attention-span Gen Z-ers who are quick to call Machen a coward and say he was “rightfully defrocked” for not obeying the GA. They used to accept the ARP and RPCNA as mainline (therefore legitimate), but when I posted a graphic on Facebook showing that the PCA, in absorbing the RPCES, became mainline according to their arbitrary rules, he just said “nuh-uh” and now ARP and RPCNA are schismatic too.

Why not just ignore him? I contend that we don’t have that luxury. He has boasted of PCA and OPC members he’s convinced to go PCUSA. He’s winning more converts from our churches than from his own, and is spending triple the effort recruiting from and attacking NAPARC churches than attacking liberalism in the PCUSA. If you make a good argument against him he blocks you. Some of his supporters are using language reminiscent of Steven Anderson.

He and his ilk are influencing our young men especially and we have to be ready for him. He has promoted USA churches as “orthodox” That not only have female elders, but even some that are LGBT friendly.

He is set to debate the moderator of the OPC soon. He has debated Doug Wilson and Matt Everhard and did well because he knows his stuff and has stuck to the topic. He is actively pursuing a degree at a PCUSA seminary. Pray for him and his movement to either succeed in reforming the PCUSA or to fail and fall apart as they try to poach and attack people in our own bodies.

 

[Theoretical]

Why not just ignore him? I contend that we don’t have that luxury. He has boasted of PCA and OPC members he’s convinced to go PCUSA. He’s winning more converts from our churches than from his own, and is spending triple the effort recruiting from and attacking NAPARC churches than attacking liberalism in the PCUSA. If you make a good argument against him he blocks you. Some of his supporters are using language reminiscent of Steven Anderson.

I thoroughly agree with this concern. The schism thing as ultimate sin, from a protestant perspective, is a really compelling hangup and burden on conscientious and serious young people. I’ve seen it and it does lots of damage.

 

[Theoretical]

I used to think he was just misguided and a little unhinged but OK and likely to fade. I frankly wouldn’t be surprised if he becomes an extremely prominent and boosted PCUSA pastor once he gets ordained. He’s the best thing that’s happened to that denomination in decades and likely the only major source of influx.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yeah, he’s a moron. Schism is worse than heresy? What a joke. “Come out of her lest you share in her sins and in her plagues.”

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

yeah, he’s a moron. Schism is worse than heresy? What a joke. “Come out of her lest you share in her sins and the n her plagues.”

He literally talks like his interpretation of Baillie and Rutherford are almost canonical. He’s still wrong about them but his followers are quick to bring them up. Here is an article to consider:

What Rutherford Actually Said

Responding to Redeemed Zoomer on Schism, Separation, and the PCA

nerdking23.substack.com

 

[Ploutos]

When you punch right and coddle left, nothing else needs to be said. His hierarchy of loyalties is clear - PCUSA first, and doctrinal fidelity after that. It's clear which one will go to the wall when he has to make a choice.

He'll fit right in, especially once his pension and credentials are tied to his denominational loyalty.

 

[py3ak]

The understanding of schism as placing all the blame on the departing party is as superficial as the position that women are usually to blame for divorce because they are most often the ones to file the paperwork. Those who created the conditions that mandated reform and refused to heed the call for reform are more to blame than those who depart. There is schism; but the numerically weaker party are not necessarily the schismatics. As I've observed before, separation is church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised.

The continuity of the church is one of doctrine in the first place (Acts 2:42). Lose sight of that, and many absurdities follow.

 

[MW]

They misinterpret Robert Baillie and Samuel Rutherford to say that unless you are excommunicated, you can never leave a true church without being guilty of the sin of schism.

One was a resolutioner and the other was a protestor. They literally separated from each other.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I posted the above from his IG. This is what he’s drilling into peoples heads. You Rutherford scholars probably can give him a run for his money. I don’t but this but too many do.

 

[Ploutos]

RZ is intelligent and has just enough plausibility and truth to what he says to sound credible. Case in point: it IS possible to be a Donatist or schismatic despite having perfect theology. In fact, historically speaking, many such groups have had rigorous and consistent theological systems.

But that doesn't make Machen a heretic nor does it provide warrant for staying with a denomination that is currently debating polyamory while touting the increased percentage of LGBTQ+ members as proof of its ongoing progress in the faith.

 

[MW]

I posted the above from his IG. This is what he’s drilling into peoples heads. You Rutherford scholars probably can give him a run for his money. I don’t but this but too many do.

It doesn't take a scholar. Just a pair of scissors to cut through the tangled ball of wool that has been created. Rutherford writes in the Due Right of Presbyteries, p. 223: "The knowledge of points fundamental is necessary. 1. To obtain salvation. 2. To keep communion with a true Church; for we are to separate from a Church subverting the foundation and laying another foundation." Hence Protestant churches separate from Roman Churches; and it is generally supposed by the same principle they find themselves providentially separate from the Greek church that separated from the Roman church.

Then on p. 229: "Though a Church retain the fundamentals, yet if we be forced to avow and believe as truth, doctrines everting the foundation of faith, against the article of one God; if we must worship as many Gods as there be hosts; if Christ's Kingly, Priestly, and Prophetical office be overturned, as we were forced in Popery to do, we are to separate from the Church in that case." Hence the Protestant Churches separating from each other for various doctrines that are not fundamental, but if they were carried through to their logical conclusion they would overturn fundamental doctrines. So Calvinists separate from Arminians, conservatives from liberals, and so on. None of this is schismatic.

Now, following on from this, Rutherford is careful to note various degrees of separation, pp. 253ff. Some of these are fundamental and declare the residual church to be no Church of Christ; some are separations only from one ordinance such as preaching, or from communicating; some are separations from the church government or from the discipline of a particular church, and so on. There are various considerations that are to be taken into account which make separation something other than schism.

Anyone who interprets Rutherford as saying any separation from a church is schism unless it is occasioned by excommunication clearly has not read Rutherford, no matter how many charts he makes.

 

[dsanch1120]

I don’t know the PCUSA well, so correct me if I’m wrong. But does he even have a shot at getting ordained? I cannot imagine that a liberal or progressive presbytery will want anything to do with him. I also have to imagine that even if he found a presbytery conservative enough to take him on a purely theological basis, I would hope that they would be hesitant because of his posture on social media. He clearly seems like a guy who loves to stir the pot.
Being under care, I’ve had wise men warn me not to start a blog or podcast, lest I say something stupid. He has a massive social media presence where he openly shares plans to undermine the majority view. I just can’t imagine his bid for ordination going anywhere. He seems to think that they’re so desperate for ministers that they’ll begrudgingly take him, but that just doesn’t seem realistic.. even if he was soft spoken

 

[Theoretical]

I don’t know the PCUSA well, so correct me if I’m wrong. But does he even have a shot at getting ordained? I cannot imagine that a liberal or progressive presbytery will want anything to do with him. I also have to imagine that even if he found a presbytery conservative enough to take him on a purely theological basis, I would hope that they would be hesitant because of his posture on social media. He clearly seems like a guy who loves to stir the pot.
Being under care, I’ve had wise men warn me not to start a blog or podcast, lest I say something stupid. He has a massive social media presence where he openly shares plans to undermine the majority view. I just can’t imagine his bid for ordination going anywhere. He seems to think that they’re so desperate for ministers that they’ll begrudgingly take him, but that just doesn’t seem realistic.. even if he was soft spoken

He's basically a conservative-ish Barthian who's totally fine with women's ordination and willing to agree to disagree on the in vogue social topics in the PCUSA. Richard's already a lot less conservative than he was years ago, and because he wants power and influence, he's almost guaranteed to continue moving in that direction.

A "conservative" essentially saying there's "no salvation outside the mainline" is something they could NEVER make up successfully on from their end of the spectrum seriously. Yet, Richard's convincing serious young men about the sin of schism to the degree they'll be a loud but controlled opposition within the PCUSA so it can again look like a big tent.

 

[Edward]

He has boasted of PCA and OPC members he’s convinced to go PCUSA.

Any PCA or OPC church that has a member wanting to go to the PCUSA should give that member a polite escort out the door with a notation in the church records.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Any PCA or OPC church that has a member wanting to go to the PCUSA should give that member a polite escort out the door with a notation in the church records.

Agreed. The PCUSA permits (and celebrates!) every form of doctrinal and moral apostasy, infidelity, and perversion conceivable - they literally have at least 1 atheist minister. They've allowed literal pagan priests to pray at their general assembly.... anyone who is convinced to join them under the premise that "schism is sin" ... we're probably better off without them!

 

[RamistThomist]

He's basically a conservative-ish Barthian who's totally fine with women's ordination and willing to agree to disagree on the in vogue social topics in the PCUSA. Richard's already a lot less conservative than he was years ago, and because he wants power and influence, he's almost guaranteed to continue moving in that direction.

And evolution

 

[SojourningSøren]

I honestly thought the kid would eventually wind up in the Roman church at some point, given his obsession with being in a “true” church…I am concerned because even here at Regent young students are either perturbed or intrigued with him. I keep encouraging these students not to take him too seriously. It’s clear he’s intent on ruffling feathers for sure. Makes you wonder if it’s for his own status or if he’s just naively sincere…

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why not just ignore him? I contend that we don’t have that luxury. He has boasted of PCA and OPC members he’s convinced to go PCUSA. He’s winning more converts from our churches than from his own, and is spending triple the effort recruiting from and attacking NAPARC churches than attacking liberalism in the PCUSA. If you make a good argument against him he blocks you. Some of his supporters are using language reminiscent of Steven Anderson.

Where are you gathering this sociological data from that the PCUSA is gaining more converts from NAPARC than it is losing to the same? The PCUSA is still hemorrhaging members. I'm not suggesting we ignore him, but neither should we exaggerate his ability to reverse the decline of the mainline. I've never believed that focusing on answering influencers is the way the Church grows. If Churches are losing people to his arguments, then it is a result of the lack of grounding that so many young men and women have in the faith, and that they look to him as their theological standard. That he has a lot of "followers" will not necessarily translate to a sustained theological movement over even a generation.

 

[No Other Name]

@RamistThomist

Re: the quote in your signature: "I told him that we took our ancient monarchy to be a blessing and not an evil to the land."
~Richard Baxter

the narrator in my head as I read that quote looks and sounds like this:

 

[Edward]

He’s winning more converts from our churches than from his own

Where are you gathering this sociological data from that the PCUSA is gaining more converts from NAPARC than it is losing to the same?

That's not how I read what PCH has said, @Semper Fidelis . I read it to say that he's getting more converts to his cause from the conservative denominations than he's getting from the post-Christians that make up the active PCUSA congregations. And given the lack of confessionalism in the PCA pews, and the hard core beliefs in the PCUSA, I would suspect that @PointyHaired Calvinist is correct as I read his statement.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's not how I read what PCH has said, @Semper Fidelis . I read it to say that he's getting more converts to his cause from the conservative denominations than he's getting from the post-Christians that make up the active PCUSA congregations. And given the lack of confessionalism in the PCA pews, and the hard core beliefs in the PCUSA, I would suspect that @PointyHaired Calvinist is correct as I read his statement.

OK, I get it now.

I think the only growth he could get (from a Gen Z perspective) is from conservative Churches because the mainline doesn't really have any. Tehy are essentially dying out.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It sometimes seems as though there is no end to theological retrieval movements about which the Church must exercise discernment.

Retrieval itself is not the problem. We ought to retrieve neglected doctrines and read older authors. The problem arises when someone discovers a theological category and immediately assumes that he has uncovered the one thing Presbyterians have never considered.

For a season, significant portions of the T4G and TGC world could speak as though faithfulness consisted chiefly in maintaining a particular compressed presentation of the Gospel. When people began to recognize that evangelical theology had become thin with respect to the Trinity, divine simplicity, and the doctrine of God, there was a sudden stampede toward Thomism. Important questions were recovered, but they were sometimes discussed as though no Reformed theologian had seriously considered them before the latest conference, podcast, or reading group.

Now someone has discovered catholicity, schism, and separation. Apparently, nobody had ever read Rutherford, Baillie, or the long history of Reformed controversy on these subjects until a young man with a social-media following began making charts.

I remember similar experiences with Roman Catholic and Arminian arguments. At first, some objection can seem new and troubling. Then you go back and read the older Reformed writers, or simply pay close attention to the distinctions thoughtfully incorporated into our Standards, and discover that the argument was raised, considered, distinguished, and answered centuries ago. Rome made arguments about visible unity, institutional continuity, private judgment, schism, and the alleged chaos of Protestantism long before Redeemed Zoomer appeared. The Remonstrants also had sophisticated arguments concerning grace, faith, freedom, and responsibility. None of this is new.

What is new, or at least unusually bizarre, is the suggestion that the PCUSA should function as the visible institution against which Presbyterian schism is measured.

Why the PCUSA? Why not the Church of Scotland? Why not the Church of England? Why not Anglicanism more broadly, Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Rome? If bare institutional continuity establishes catholicity and makes departure presumptively schismatic, there are far older bodies with far more impressive historical claims than a particular American mainline denomination.

Yet somehow the PCUSA becomes the “true Church” from which conservative Presbyterians must not depart, and visible communion with that particular body becomes the measure of catholicity. That is not catholicity. It is a strangely provincial denominationalism dressed up in catholic language.

The historic discussion is much more developed and nuanced. Every Christian communion has had to wrestle with the distinction between sinful schism and conscientious separation. It is possible to divide a sound church for trivial, ambitious, or sectarian reasons. It is also possible for those who retain the name, property, courts, and institutional machinery to impose sinful terms of communion and drive faithful Christians away.

The mere fact that one party departed does not establish that the departing party caused the schism. The relevant questions concern doctrine, worship, discipline, government, terms of communion, and whether remaining requires participation in or toleration of serious corruption. Organizational continuity is not identical to ecclesiastical fidelity.

That is why the older writers discuss different kinds and degrees of separation. One may separate from a particular minister, ordinance, judicatory, or corrupt administration without declaring that every person remaining is outside the invisible Church. One may also conclude that a body has so fundamentally corrupted the marks of the Church that continued communion is no longer possible. These are difficult judgments, but they are not resolved by the childish formula that whoever physically leaves must be the schismatic.

Nor is catholicity measured by communion with every institution calling itself a church. Christian catholicity is communion in Christ through the apostolic faith. It obligates us to recognize true churches beyond our own denomination, to avoid unnecessary division, and to seek the peace and unity of Christ’s body. It does not require us to treat doctrinal indifferentism, female ordination, the abandonment of biblical morality, or the toleration of Christ-denying teaching as harmless features of a venerable institution.

Redeemed Zoomer is no Bellarmine. Bellarmine was a genuinely formidable controversialist, and the Reformed orthodox still answered his arguments at length and with careful distinctions. The surface plausibility of the Roman argument about visible unity disappears once one distinguishes the catholic Church from a particular institutional body, lawful separation from schism, and historical continuity from fidelity to the apostolic faith.

The same thing is happening here. The argument looks imposing only so long as the categories remain undefined. Once the smallest theological needle is applied, the whole inflated structure begins to collapse.

My Gen X vocabulary supplies some shorter descriptions of the claim, but I am trying not to use them anymore. I will settle for saying that making communion with the PCUSA the test of Presbyterian catholicity is historically confused, ecclesiologically provincial, and intellectually unserious.

 

[arapahoepark]

There is always something to be said about the hubris of the youth. Now its cult is being normalized.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I realized, with a little despair, several years ago that the Church cannot possibly keep pace with the cultural production of YouTube, podcasts, TikTok, and social media.

Even if pastors, elders, theologians, and serious Christian institutions made a concerted effort to respond, it would be practically impossible to chase down every rabbit hole promoted by every half-informed enthusiast, semi-serious podcaster, conspiracy theorist, or online eccentric. By the time someone carefully answered one viral claim, ten more would have appeared.

Even if the Church could keep up, its answers would rarely be as entertaining as Candace Owens, or any number of similar personalities, to people who already inhabit reality distortion fields. Who wants to listen to a careful explanation of history, evidence, theological distinctions, and competing interpretations after laughing at a meme that seems to explain everything in ten seconds?

Who wants to spend an hour learning why a theological question requires distinctions when a confident young man can offer a chart, a slogan, and a villain?

My children sometimes ask me very complex theological questions. They encounter a claim online, recognize that it presents some kind of problem, and ask me what I think. I will often begin unraveling the assumptions, defining the terms, distinguishing several issues that have been collapsed together, and placing the argument in its historical context.

One of my children can become a little impatient with this. He will state the issue as an eighteen-year-old naturally might, I will qualify and nuance it, and he will respond, “You’re just saying the same thing in different language.”

But I am not.

I am distinguishing things that initially sound similar but are not the same. I am trying to explain why the language matters, why the history matters, and why the apparent simplicity of the question is misleading. That understanding reflects theological study longer than he has been alive, along with roughly three times his age in experience, failure, observation, and accumulated judgment.

This does not remotely approach the distance between Creator and creature, of course, but the distance between our respective apprehensions of a complex issue can still be very great. He does not yet know enough to recognize how much he does not know. That is normal at eighteen. It becomes a serious problem when an entire culture decides that the confidence of youth is more valuable than mature judgment.

That is part of the problem with Redeemed Zoomer. He is not merely an unusually confident young man. He reflects a culture that is satisfied with meme-level answers to questions that have occupied the Church for centuries.

Complex ecclesiological questions become charts. Historical disputes become personality conflicts. Difficult distinctions between schism, separation, corruption, catholicity, and institutional continuity become slogans. Confidence substitutes for comprehension, and novelty substitutes for learning.

The same kind of mind can become persuaded that socialism “works.” It requires very little intellectual effort to find the theory appealing, especially when one ignores history, incentives, human nature, unintended consequences, and the repeated collapse of societies that attempted to implement it. The slogan is simple. The qualifications are tedious. The theory feels compassionate. The historical record is inconvenient.

The problem is not merely that Redeemed Zoomer is young, or that his arguments are shallow. The deeper problem is a culture that believes it should be receiving its theology from a Gen Zer in the first place.

One might imagine that the solution is to put mature, stable, learned men in front of cameras and microphones. Certainly, we should make good teaching available. But there is a limit to what that can accomplish because the culture attracted to figures like Redeemed Zoomer is often not attracted to maturity, stability, or wisdom.

Wisdom is slow. Wisdom qualifies. Wisdom says that several things may be true at once. Wisdom recognizes historical complexity. Wisdom sometimes refuses to reach a conclusion until the relevant terms have been defined and the evidence examined.

Folly is immediate. Folly is confident. Folly has a chart. Folly identifies the one thing everyone else has missed. Folly turns centuries of theological controversy into content.

The Church should certainly answer error, teach its people, and equip parents and elders to respond. But we should not imagine that we can win merely by producing more content. The real contest is not between competing podcasts. It is between wisdom and a culture habituated to folly.

 

[MarrowMan]

I realized, with a little despair, several years ago that the Church cannot possibly keep pace with the cultural production of YouTube, podcasts, TikTok, and social media.

Even if pastors, elders, theologians, and serious Christian institutions made a concerted effort to respond, it would be practically impossible to chase down every rabbit hole promoted by every half-informed enthusiast, semi-serious podcaster, conspiracy theorist, or online eccentric. By the time someone carefully answered one viral claim, ten more would have appeared.

Even if the Church could keep up, its answers would rarely be as entertaining as Candace Owens, or any number of similar personalities, to people who already inhabit reality distortion fields. Who wants to listen to a careful explanation of history, evidence, theological distinctions, and competing interpretations after laughing at a meme that seems to explain everything in ten seconds?

Who wants to spend an hour learning why a theological question requires distinctions when a confident young man can offer a chart, a slogan, and a villain?

My children sometimes ask me very complex theological questions. They encounter a claim online, recognize that it presents some kind of problem, and ask me what I think. I will often begin unraveling the assumptions, defining the terms, distinguishing several issues that have been collapsed together, and placing the argument in its historical context.

One of my children can become a little impatient with this. He will state the issue as an eighteen-year-old naturally might, I will qualify and nuance it, and he will respond, “You’re just saying the same thing in different language.”

But I am not.

I am distinguishing things that initially sound similar but are not the same. I am trying to explain why the language matters, why the history matters, and why the apparent simplicity of the question is misleading. That understanding reflects theological study longer than he has been alive, along with roughly three times his age in experience, failure, observation, and accumulated judgment.

This does not remotely approach the distance between Creator and creature, of course, but the distance between our respective apprehensions of a complex issue can still be very great. He does not yet know enough to recognize how much he does not know. That is normal at eighteen. It becomes a serious problem when an entire culture decides that the confidence of youth is more valuable than mature judgment.

That is part of the problem with Redeemed Zoomer. He is not merely an unusually confident young man. He reflects a culture that is satisfied with meme-level answers to questions that have occupied the Church for centuries.

Complex ecclesiological questions become charts. Historical disputes become personality conflicts. Difficult distinctions between schism, separation, corruption, catholicity, and institutional continuity become slogans. Confidence substitutes for comprehension, and novelty substitutes for learning.

The same kind of mind can become persuaded that socialism “works.” It requires very little intellectual effort to find the theory appealing, especially when one ignores history, incentives, human nature, unintended consequences, and the repeated collapse of societies that attempted to implement it. The slogan is simple. The qualifications are tedious. The theory feels compassionate. The historical record is inconvenient.

The problem is not merely that Redeemed Zoomer is young, or that his arguments are shallow. The deeper problem is a culture that believes it should be receiving its theology from a Gen Zer in the first place.

One might imagine that the solution is to put mature, stable, learned men in front of cameras and microphones. Certainly, we should make good teaching available. But there is a limit to what that can accomplish because the culture attracted to figures like Redeemed Zoomer is often not attracted to maturity, stability, or wisdom.

Wisdom is slow. Wisdom qualifies. Wisdom says that several things may be true at once. Wisdom recognizes historical complexity. Wisdom sometimes refuses to reach a conclusion until the relevant terms have been defined and the evidence examined.

Folly is immediate. Folly is confident. Folly has a chart. Folly identifies the one thing everyone else has missed. Folly turns centuries of theological controversy into content.

The Church should certainly answer error, teach its people, and equip parents and elders to respond. But we should not imagine that we can win merely by producing more content. The real contest is not between competing podcasts. It is between wisdom and a culture habituated to folly.

Mega dittos

 

[Theoretical]

Makes you wonder if it’s for his own status or if he’s just naively sincere…

Some friends know him personally and think it's more the latter, along with the classic problem of getting hung up about one issue and shaping everything around it.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Any PCA or OPC church that has a member wanting to go to the PCUSA should give that member a polite escort out the door with a notation in the church records.

While I get why you say that and sympathize, we may literally have college and young 20's guys who are caught up in RZ's rhetoric. If anything, this is a perfect opportunity to show why what he is spewing is nonsense. If we're quick to dismiss the people who are interested in his ideas, we'll be more likely to lose them. They're wanting answers and are pushing for them.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

That's not how I read what PCH has said, @Semper Fidelis . I read it to say that he's getting more converts to his cause from the conservative denominations than he's getting from the post-Christians that make up the active PCUSA congregations. And given the lack of confessionalism in the PCA pews, and the hard core beliefs in the PCUSA, I would suspect that @PointyHaired Calvinist is correct as I read his statement.

Yeah, that!

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Debate is August 14: