PCA vs. OPC
- Thread starter jbergsing
- Start date
- Status
Simple distinction:
OPC, formed 1936 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who were forced out of the northern Presbyterian mainline (PCUSA)
PCA, formed 1972 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the southern Presbyterian mainline (PC,US--formerly PC, CSA)
OPC, formed 1936 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who were forced out of the northern Presbyterian mainline (PCUSA)
PCA, formed 1972 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the southern Presbyterian mainline (PC,US--formerly PC, CSA)
Both are not perfect; get over it.
Another difference:
The folks that formed the PCA in 1972 got to keep that name without threat of lawsuit.
The OPC was originally called the PCA when it formed but was sued by the PCUSA over the name and had to change its name to the OPC.
I'll be honest with you, I think the name of the OPC is a hinderance to its broader appeal and it might have grown more rapidly in recent years if it didn't have the name.
I was not a complete novice to Reformed theology when I moved to CA in 1999. I was concerned because there was only an OPC in town and I had just become Presbyterian (in a Springfield PCA congregation) a couple of years prior. It had been quite a leap for me and my wife to leave "interesting" worship for the sake of sound doctrine in a PCA Church.
I didn't know anything about the OPC except it's name. The term Orthodox in its name instills the idea of being old, stodgy, etc. I pictured all the men in suits and all the women in bonnets singing with dour expressions.
I know that sounds funny to some now but I think I can safely say that, at the time, I represented what a typical evangelical in the process of reforming is thinking. My vocabulary has always been above-average so imagine what others are thinking.
I don't know the solution because I love the OPC. There's no point in going back in time but I sometimes wonder how the OPC might have grown with a different name.
The folks that formed the PCA in 1972 got to keep that name without threat of lawsuit.
The OPC was originally called the PCA when it formed but was sued by the PCUSA over the name and had to change its name to the OPC.
I'll be honest with you, I think the name of the OPC is a hinderance to its broader appeal and it might have grown more rapidly in recent years if it didn't have the name.
I was not a complete novice to Reformed theology when I moved to CA in 1999. I was concerned because there was only an OPC in town and I had just become Presbyterian (in a Springfield PCA congregation) a couple of years prior. It had been quite a leap for me and my wife to leave "interesting" worship for the sake of sound doctrine in a PCA Church.
I didn't know anything about the OPC except it's name. The term Orthodox in its name instills the idea of being old, stodgy, etc. I pictured all the men in suits and all the women in bonnets singing with dour expressions.
I know that sounds funny to some now but I think I can safely say that, at the time, I represented what a typical evangelical in the process of reforming is thinking. My vocabulary has always been above-average so imagine what others are thinking.
I don't know the solution because I love the OPC. There's no point in going back in time but I sometimes wonder how the OPC might have grown with a different name.
I think in the book publishing world I have had similar problems.
I chose Naphtali Press to name my reformed publishing outfit (with good Scottish Covenanter pedigree as reason); and someone of very good Reformed pedigree told me this week it made him think "Mormon".
Ooops.
I chose Naphtali Press to name my reformed publishing outfit (with good Scottish Covenanter pedigree as reason); and someone of very good Reformed pedigree told me this week it made him think "Mormon".
Ooops.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Since being reformed, I have actually always thought to myself that the OPC had a better name than the rest of the Presbyterian Churches. I never thought of it from the perspective you described, Rich.
Before discovering the reformation, I simply never heard of any of these churches. I only knew "Presbyterian" and figured they were all the same.
Before discovering the reformation, I simply never heard of any of these churches. I only knew "Presbyterian" and figured they were all the same.
Me too. But maybe I am getting old and stodgy. I like the name. It sounds Historic.
Kristine with a K
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you looking more for what the differences are in faith/practice between OPC and PCA? Assuming "yes".... I know the PCA encourages infant baptism and such children receiving the Lord's Supper at an early age. I believe the OPC encourages infant baptism, but withholds the Lord's Supper until the child is older (teen-agish, right?).
Kristine,
That's actually not quite accurate. The practices are not quite monolithic enough in each to characterize them that way. I've seen young communicants in both denominations.
I've actually been wracking my brain for a fair way to characterize the differences but each time I come up with an idea I realize I could come up with an OPC or PCA that I know of that "breaks the rule" I'm thinking about. This is tough.
In broad categories, on the whole the OPC is a bit more conservative. The PCA is likely to have large congregations that are not strictly Reformed with people who are Presbyterian in the South because they've always been Presbyterian.
OPC congregations are typically pretty small. The OPC is about 1/10th the size of the PCA.
Maybe a good characterization is that being in the OPC is like being in a small town as opposed to a city - more likely to know your neighbors but also likely to be sometimes wary of strangers. The city dwellers may be too busy to get to know each other and too big for the leaders to keep good tabs on the goings on.
Again, these are broad brush strokes.
In broad categories, on the whole the OPC is a bit more conservative. The PCA is likely to have large congregations that are not strictly Reformed with people who are Presbyterian in the South because they've always been Presbyterian.
OPC congregations are typically pretty small. The OPC is about 1/10th the size of the PCA.
Maybe a good characterization is that being in the OPC is like being in a small town as opposed to a city - more likely to know your neighbors but also likely to be sometimes wary of strangers. The city dwellers may be too busy to get to know each other and too big for the leaders to keep good tabs on the goings on.
Again, these are broad brush strokes.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Interesting. Do you think any of the leadership might consider changing the name?
BTW, thank you for your service. My father served in the Corp in Korea.
jfschultz
Puritan Board Junior
Actually the National Presbyterian Church was formed in 1973 by faithful ministers (and their congregations) who voluntarily left the southern Presbyterian mainline. There was a "Convocation of Sessions" in the summer of 1973 that established the "Organizing Committee of 40" and the first General Assembly was in December of 1973.
The 1974 General Assembly a received a communications from the National Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the northern church in Washington DC. After a short discussion a new name, Presbyterian Church in America was adopted.
See A BRIEF HISTORY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
As much as I am disgusted by the amount of disunity within the Reformed church and find the many fractions embarrassing, I would not be so quick to support such a merger. I find the two denominations are more alike on paper, but worlds apart in practice (generally speaking, there are exceptions within each side).
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Well, the proposed OPC-PCA merger would have happened before the PCA's merger with the less confessional RPC-ES if my reading of that chronology is correct. If the OPC and PCA had merged when the PCA was more confessional, then perhaps the RPC-ES might have not merged with the new strongly confessional body. But, you sadly now have to deal with the situation that we now have.
The proposed mergers went:
PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).
Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).
The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and rejected the OPC. This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.
At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.
Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.
PCA proposes "joining & receiving" (J&R) to both the OPC and the RPCES within a few months/years of forming (yes, the PCA had an immediate name change, just like the OPC).
Both smaller bodies voted to join the larger, which involved no negotiations of merging documents, etc. The churches were simply to adopt the PCA's documents and structure (the West. Stds. being basic to all).
The PCA voted to receive the RPCES, and rejected the OPC. This was blamed on the then-current Shepherd controversy at Westminster.
At a later date, the PCA revived the J&R process, and re-invited the OPC. However, at this point the OPC desired a true merger of churches, not a "falling in" with the PCA. However, the form and terms of union was not negotiable according to the PCA. So the second time, the OPC was the side that demurred.
Interestingly, while it seems true that the RPCES pulled the PCA in a decidedly "evangelical" direction, prior to the NPC/PCA formation (1973, my mistake above) the OPC and RPCES had for a number of years been in merger discussions, but they were not moving very quickly. The RPCES was itself a union of two bodies, one of which was the largest BPC synod now separate from Carl MacIntire. So, there was some impetus for a few years to repair the breach he precipitated with the OPC at its birth.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
The PCA proposed a "J&R" method to the OPC c. 1986. The OPC was in the midst of her 50th anniversary celebrations, giving folk opportunity to think again about why the OPC was formed in the first place. In this context, the the OPC rejected the "Joining and Receiving" because they wanted a negotiated merger. The PCA, it seems to me, essentially said, "Here are the terms, take 'em or leave 'em." As a result of the failed attempt to unite several (mainly "new life" - infl. by Jack Miller's New Life PC in Phila) OP congregations left for the PCA.
Since then the two denominations have taken on rather different characteristics. The OP is more homogenous. It is much smaller (who ever used the analogy of a small town is on to something). It has probably proportionally more theonomists, supporters of Norm Shepherd/FV, and fundamentalists. It also has proportionally more old school types. The dominant approach to the confession in the OPC seems to be "system" subscription. Until recent years, most of her ministers (as John Muether has noted) came from the same school. With the proliferation of Reformed seminaries, candidates for ministry now come from a variety of backgrounds.
The mainstream of the OPC holds to system subscription and identifies with Old School (and some even with Old Side!) Presbyterianism (Old Princeton, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Old Westminster etc).
There is a certain amount of fundamentalism (e.g., 6/24 creation defines the Reformed faith) in the OPC and their influence grew considerably after the counter-balancing progressive movement left for the PCA ca. 1989. The recent justification controversy may represent the apex of the fundamentalists revisionists (Kinnaird, FV) and the recent creation and justification reports probably represent the re-assertion of the old school/system approach as the dominant approach to Reformed theology, piety, and practice in the OPC.
Ten times larger than the OP, the PCA is much more diverse. There was an attempted merger between the OPs and the RPCES in the 70s. I believe the merger with the RPCES and the PCA in 1982. The premillennialism of the RPCES also brought into the PCA some of the old fundamentalist influences from the earlier in the 20th century. Having emerged fairly late from the mainline Southern Presbyterian Church, the PCA was rather broader (more inclusive of a variety of positions and approaches to the confession) than the OP. Today, the PCA is probably best described as a coalition of several groups:
1) Conservative (strict) subscriptionists (e.g., Pipa, Smith, Knight) who tend to be Southern Presbyterian along the lines of Dabney and Thornwell;
2) Progressive ("good faith") subscriptionists (e.g., Chapell, Keller) who tend to be Northerners and more closely aligned to and tolerant of American evangelicalism (and to revivalism) than the conservative/strict subscriptionists. This is also tends to be the PPT lot. This group also represents the pastor's group that disbanded a couple of years ago, the name of which I can't recall (led by Tim Keller and others).
3) Evangelicals (e.g., folks with strong ties to evangelical para-church organizations such as Crusade and the like) who have mainly a formal connection to Reformed theology, piety, and praxis. If you asked this group about the "RPW" or other Reformed distinctives you might get a blank stare. In this they are like the "traditionalists" except they are probably more theologically conservative. Both groups are most pietists.
4) Traditionalists (folk whose ties to the old So Presbyterian Church kept them in the PCA after the merger, but who don't identify strongly with the confession). These folk are in the PCA because their family has always been Southern Presbyterian etc. Before folk start screamng, every denomination (including my own) has this group.
5) Revisionists (e.g., a good section of the Louisiana Presbytery!; those advocating the federal vsion, paedocommunion, theonomy etc; those advocating the ordination of females to presbyterial or ministerial office). This group is certainly the smallest but probably the noisiest. This is an eclectic grouping that is not internally coherent (e.g., some of the FV are theonomists, some of the theonomists are not FV and both of those groups would reject the ordination of females). I group them together because these smaller groups are advocating the most radical changes in the PCA.
6) I'm not sure what to call the "system" subscriptionists who identify with the old school such as Will Barker. I don't know how large this group is. Maybe they are the silent majority?
7) The Twin-Lakes Fellowship includes folk from a variety of groups but is led by folk such as Ligon Duncan who tend to be confessional but come from different regions and different approaches to the confession in the interests of promoting the growth and planting of confessionally Reformed churches in the PCA.
These categories aren't meant to be definitive and certainly not pejorative but descriptive. I'm happy to revise these.
Since then the two denominations have taken on rather different characteristics. The OP is more homogenous. It is much smaller (who ever used the analogy of a small town is on to something). It has probably proportionally more theonomists, supporters of Norm Shepherd/FV, and fundamentalists. It also has proportionally more old school types. The dominant approach to the confession in the OPC seems to be "system" subscription. Until recent years, most of her ministers (as John Muether has noted) came from the same school. With the proliferation of Reformed seminaries, candidates for ministry now come from a variety of backgrounds.
The mainstream of the OPC holds to system subscription and identifies with Old School (and some even with Old Side!) Presbyterianism (Old Princeton, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Old Westminster etc).
There is a certain amount of fundamentalism (e.g., 6/24 creation defines the Reformed faith) in the OPC and their influence grew considerably after the counter-balancing progressive movement left for the PCA ca. 1989. The recent justification controversy may represent the apex of the fundamentalists revisionists (Kinnaird, FV) and the recent creation and justification reports probably represent the re-assertion of the old school/system approach as the dominant approach to Reformed theology, piety, and practice in the OPC.
Ten times larger than the OP, the PCA is much more diverse. There was an attempted merger between the OPs and the RPCES in the 70s. I believe the merger with the RPCES and the PCA in 1982. The premillennialism of the RPCES also brought into the PCA some of the old fundamentalist influences from the earlier in the 20th century. Having emerged fairly late from the mainline Southern Presbyterian Church, the PCA was rather broader (more inclusive of a variety of positions and approaches to the confession) than the OP. Today, the PCA is probably best described as a coalition of several groups:
1) Conservative (strict) subscriptionists (e.g., Pipa, Smith, Knight) who tend to be Southern Presbyterian along the lines of Dabney and Thornwell;
2) Progressive ("good faith") subscriptionists (e.g., Chapell, Keller) who tend to be Northerners and more closely aligned to and tolerant of American evangelicalism (and to revivalism) than the conservative/strict subscriptionists. This is also tends to be the PPT lot. This group also represents the pastor's group that disbanded a couple of years ago, the name of which I can't recall (led by Tim Keller and others).
3) Evangelicals (e.g., folks with strong ties to evangelical para-church organizations such as Crusade and the like) who have mainly a formal connection to Reformed theology, piety, and praxis. If you asked this group about the "RPW" or other Reformed distinctives you might get a blank stare. In this they are like the "traditionalists" except they are probably more theologically conservative. Both groups are most pietists.
4) Traditionalists (folk whose ties to the old So Presbyterian Church kept them in the PCA after the merger, but who don't identify strongly with the confession). These folk are in the PCA because their family has always been Southern Presbyterian etc. Before folk start screamng, every denomination (including my own) has this group.
5) Revisionists (e.g., a good section of the Louisiana Presbytery!; those advocating the federal vsion, paedocommunion, theonomy etc; those advocating the ordination of females to presbyterial or ministerial office). This group is certainly the smallest but probably the noisiest. This is an eclectic grouping that is not internally coherent (e.g., some of the FV are theonomists, some of the theonomists are not FV and both of those groups would reject the ordination of females). I group them together because these smaller groups are advocating the most radical changes in the PCA.
6) I'm not sure what to call the "system" subscriptionists who identify with the old school such as Will Barker. I don't know how large this group is. Maybe they are the silent majority?
7) The Twin-Lakes Fellowship includes folk from a variety of groups but is led by folk such as Ligon Duncan who tend to be confessional but come from different regions and different approaches to the confession in the interests of promoting the growth and planting of confessionally Reformed churches in the PCA.
These categories aren't meant to be definitive and certainly not pejorative but descriptive. I'm happy to revise these.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Very helpful Dr. Clark. Thank you for taking the time to post that. Much appreciated. 
BobVigneault
Bawberator
The Dutch Reformed DON'T fit in. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
(Sorry)
(Sorry)
My uncle is 'Dutch Reformed' and claims that they are all either 5 or 4 pointers.
jfschultz
Puritan Board Junior
The J&R idea came up at a OPC RPCES meeting where the PCA had an observer.
The first step was for the PCA to invite the OPC and RPCES to join. That vote, at the presbytery level passed for the RPCES, but failed by one presbytery for the OPC. The RPCES then acted to accept the invitation.
A bit of local Presbyterian history: Independent Presbyterian Church was formed by a group that broke off from Second Presbyterian Church (then PCUS and now EPC). It went independent due to the lack of a conservative Presbyterian denomination (perhaps just looking locally). First Reformed Presbyterian Church was formed by a group that broke off from IPC and went RPCES. After J&R First Reformed moved from east Memphis to Germantown, the name was changed to Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church. A few years ago IPC joined the PCA.
- Status
