The Reconquista Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

ProtestantReformer

Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings all. I am here to ask for thoughts concerning the Reconquista Movement spearheaded by Redeemed Zoomer. For those who are unaware, it is a movement to reclaim the Mainline churches, to win back the institutions & to reform from within; in order to do this, Zoomer encourages people to go to conservative Mainline churches & to fight from within, while at the same time discouraging people from going to churches that have "retreated", with the accusation of them being cowards & of the sin of schism (PCA, OPC, ACNA, etc.). He says the Kingdom of God is about reclaiming the Earth, & that means having historic buildings & institutions that have cultural impact.
I've seen more & more people begin to support the movement & consider leaving their orthodox church to join into the fight, which is alarming. I've also seen people leave Protestantism entirely because of the hopelessness that has been presented (either save the mainlines or Protestantism is doomed). My questions are these;

When is it biblically necessary to break away from a communion?
At what point does a church become irredeemable & dissolved into a synagogue of Satan?
Are strong institutions necessary for the Gospel to be effective & to keep men from going towards Rome/East?

Thank you all & God bless you.
 
Greetings all. I am here to ask for thoughts concerning the Reconquista Movement spearheaded by Redeemed Zoomer.
Hi Christian,

That is interesting. I never heard of it. I, too, have a heart for the so-called broadly evangelical churches as they are part of the Church (except those that are of the synagogue of satan). We Reformed sometimes fall into thinking we are the Church.
But I do not at all think that what you say about their methodology is sound.

I just lurk to see what others add to the discussion.
 
I was baptized in the then northern church and reared in the southern.

Shortly after I came to Christ and became part of a PCA plant, I asked the same question of Morton Smith. He left with the PCA, but one of his brothers stayed behind as a teaching elder. He clearly saw this as missionary work to reform from within.

He stressed that neither staying nor leaving should be placed above the other but that someone who is ordained has opportunities unique to his position.

You may also want to consider that the OPC sees itself as continuing the faith while the northern church became apostate and a dead branch. The division was over the very basics of the gospel -- do we build mankind by going out and doing good works or do we preach the gospel to a lost and dying generation?
 
As you've described the Reconquista movement, there are at least three problems: one of tactics, one of ignorance, and one of outlook.

First, it is essential to evil to be parasitic--to invade something that already exists and corrupt it from its proper end to something ultimately self-destructive. With that understanding it's no surprise that Marxists subvert institutions or that progressives infiltrate congregations and denominations. There is a time to fight back; but if we stand for good we can't participate in the parasitic methods of evil. As Paul says (2 Cor. 4:1-2):
Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
So any attempt to reconquer churches or other institutions that depends on crossed fingers or other covert methods to succeed is ultimately self-defeating. We are being parasitized by evil in the attempt.

Historically, it's also a little ignorant: Machen didn't leave, he was put under discipline. What was the man born blind in John 9 supposed to do to reclaim the institutional cachet of the synagogue from which he was expelled? Ecclesiastical separation is church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised. When other legitimate methods of resistance are closed to you or are ineffective, a fresh start is proper. And the historical precedent for that goes much deeper than the 1930s in the United States.

Finally, this measuring of the effectiveness of God's kingdom in terms of buildings and institutions is simply worldliness: man looks at the outward appearance. In the book of Acts, the temple was incomparably grand beyond the upper room; but the splendid building could now be called Ichabod, whereas the power of the Spirit was with the little band. I've never engaged with Redeemed Zoomer, but if what you say is an accurate representation of him it sounds like he could profit from some time spent meditating on the significance of Jeremiah 7.
 
Zoomer... discouraging people from going to churches that have "retreated", with the accusation of them being cowards & of the sin of schism (...OPC...)
Historically, it's also a little ignorant: Machen didn't leave, he was put under discipline.
I find this "Zoomer" character's accusation of the OPC of cowardly retreat from the mainline, if indeed true, to be rather offensive. You claim to know the ins and outs of the mainline Presbyterian Church and don't see their tyranny against the brethren that would go on to form the OPC, then your ignorance is a neon sign flashing your foolishness.

I don't expect most people to be familiar with the OPC, but if you claim to know these things, then you have no excuse but to know it.
 
Concerning small churches:

Rom. 16:5, "Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ."

Concerning separation from false doctrine:

Rom. 16:17-18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Concerning simplicity of profession:

Rom. 16:19, "For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil."

Concerning the prospects of small churches:

Rom. 16:20, "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."
 
It's flawed and grossly oversimplified. There's also a vast, vast difference between a reconquista of the new UMC, PCUSA, or a liberal Episcopal diocese and a conservative diocese, an American Baptist congregation, a conservative UCC church, or some other less top-down polities where a church can leave more readily. The former is a fool's errand and the latter is not out of the question to reform. But the latter would be like those working for Reform in something like a moderate CRC or LCMS, which are drastically different.

I don't think Richard is advocating for crossed fingers in going to the liberal churches in these denominations to change them, but rather to make the conservative ones more conservative and stronger and the moderates more conservative and stronger. The real problem is that his movement, however strong just needs to get strong enough to be a threat and the [Institutional] Empire WILL strike back in spectacular fashion. The UMC has institutional powers the PCUSA dreams of (it's considered the 2nd most hierarchical polity to the Roman Catholics) and I expect heavy persecution of conservative congregations and ministers that couldn't quite get enough to leave.
 
It's flawed and grossly oversimplified. There's also a vast, vast difference between a reconquista of the new UMC, PCUSA, or a liberal Episcopal diocese and a conservative diocese, an American Baptist congregation, a conservative UCC church, or some other less top-down polities where a church can leave more readily. The former is a fool's errand and the latter is not out of the question to reform. But the latter would be like those working for Reform in something like a moderate CRC or LCMS, which are drastically different.

I don't think Richard is advocating for crossed fingers in going to the liberal churches in these denominations to change them, but rather to make the conservative ones more conservative and stronger and the moderates more conservative and stronger. The real problem is that his movement, however strong just needs to get strong enough to be a threat and the [Institutional] Empire WILL strike back in spectacular fashion. The UMC has institutional powers the PCUSA dreams of (it's considered the 2nd most hierarchical polity to the Roman Catholics) and I expect heavy persecution of conservative congregations and ministers that couldn't quite get enough to leave.
I'm not aware of the goings-on in the LCMS, but are they facing issues akin to the CRC?
 
I think the heart is good behind his push, Yet a lot of what he says ranges from problematic to uncharitable. I firmly reject the notion of evangelical denominations being “retreatist.” If he was consistent with his logic he would say that Luther and Calvin were wrong in the reformation. I don’t know the entire history of what went into be various separations from the mainlines, but the characterization of cowardice and retreating is uncharitable and inaccurate. He seems to assume that nobody ever fought for change or reform until his “movement” came along. There does come a time to shake the dust off one’s sandals (and to devote resources to actually doing gospel work).
He seems to think that a revived mainline is important because of cultural influence. This assumes 1. That the evangelical denominations are incapable of influence or effective evangelism, and 2. That the American world would respect or be willing to be influenced by the mainlines. Our Secular culture despises the church, and most (even within the church) are incredibly distrustful of institutions. I don’t think a retaking of the mainlines will lead to the influence he thinks it will, just a larger institution for the secular world to ignore and scoff at.
I also find the seeming love of beautiful buildings over good doctrine to be ridiculous and unbiblical. Scripture speaks of the beauty of the feet of those who bring good news. Feet were pretty gross back in the day, but are called beautiful because of the good news. God allowed his beautiful temple to be destroyed and replaced by something less beautiful as judgment. I have been at churches with that are far from the outside beauty of mainline cathedrals, but were filled with gospel preaching and Christian hospitality. Those were beautiful churches, because they were churches that honored God.
One final thought. He is not seminary educated and he is not a minister. He may have both within his project, but he is the one who influences on social media. We just recently saw how damaging celebrity pastor culture is with Steve Lawson. Is it good that he has the position and influence that he does? I do not think so.
 
Ignore Zoomer. His movement is destined to fail. He's a young kid who has no idea how this works. The priestesses in charge of the denomination will simply outvote him and tax his congregation. He refuses to accept correction.
 
Zoomer has repeatedly claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is a "true church with a saving gospel," all while calling himself a "conservative Presbyterian." His movement has made an idol out of institutions, which has led to compromise after compromise on doctrine. Mark and avoid.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" - Rev. 18:4
 
I'm not aware of the goings-on in the LCMS, but are they facing issues akin to the CRC?
There's some rumblings on the more egalitarian side, and they do have some more moderate congregations pushing the envelope, especially with the recent commentary on the Large Catechism and some controversies there regarding social justice type stuff. Confessional types seem very distrusting of their denominational President for being more on the progressive side (how progressive I'm not familiar enough to say). Obviously women's ordination of pastors and elders is not a thing there yet, and hopefully never will be. They have deaconesses but it's a distinct role from that of the deacon. It's a far bigger tent than the PCA though. It'd be the equivalent if you had one very large denomination that housed moderate ECO churches all the way through to the most conservative church in the ARP.

The better analogy from the LCMS would be the breakaway NALC denomination from the ELCA that does allow women's ordination but is pretty conservative. I can't tell whether it's closer to the Lutheran ECO or EPC. NALC churches are egalitarian but pretty loosey-goosey to a confessional Lutheran.

The analogy wasn't a perfect one because using those two the denomination is relatively sound but the local congregation might not be and you'd be joining to reform the congregation. With the latter set of examples (American Baptist, conservative UCC, or moderate church in a conservative-moderate Episcopal diocese such as Central Florida or Fort Worth before it moved en masse to ACNA), the denomination is very problematic but there might be a legitimately sound local congregation in such a denomination and your presence would be more likely to cause them to stand firm with their autonomy or join with a better group.
 
RZ is a zealous child who is really excited about theology but has no idea what he’s doing. His movement is largely irrelevant and was almost completely squashed this year at the PCUSA GA, barring a fine-print loophole. I would say I appreciate some of his work, but all he’s done is teach young people that
1. Justification isn’t THAT important.
2. Being Reformed is mostly about having a high view of the sacraments (Baptismal Regeneration)
3. Extravagant buildings and institutional continuity with the mainline are more important than the traditional marks of a true church.
4. Machen was a coward.
5. You’re a coward too if you become a member of a faithful OPC church that meets in a strip mall instead of joining your local Lesbyterian church and turning it “conservative” from within… and by conservative he means egalitarian and Barthian. PUT UP WITH IT COWARD
 
Could you please elaborate? I'm not familiar.
I'll DM you so I can forward you a lengthy email I got (basically in transcript form).
Suffice it to say before there was Al Mohler, there was Robert Preus. Though anachronistic, he was the Mohler of Concordia Seminary in the 70s.
 
You’re a coward too if you become a member of a faithful OPC church that meets in a strip mall instead of joining your local Lesbyterian church and turning it “conservative” from within… and by conservative he means egalitarian and Barthian.
This is the irony of the whole movement. Zoomer's conservatism is yesterday's liberalism.
 
This is the irony of the whole movement. Zoomer's conservatism is yesterday's liberalism.
That's a good point, he seems to be more against the progressivism of nowadays while supporting the liberalism that led to it. He seems to hold up Neo-orthodoxy as a positive against what he labels as fundamentalism in the evangelical denominations.
 
Isn't that always the case when "conservatism" is valued without regard to what is conserved? Jeremiah was supposed to tear down and destroy before he planted and built.
Or schools of conservatism that never seem to conserve anything.
 
I appreciate the zeal to reform these large institutions, though the old liberalism will not suit for doing it. Even if the Reconquista movement were more conservative than it is, Paul himself knew when to walk away.

Paul says in Romans:

"...I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh..." Rom. 9:2-3. He'd do anything for his Jewish family to be saved.

But he also says,

"But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” Acts 18:6.

Sometimes it is cowardly to just walk away. Other times it is wise. There's many other people out there willing to hear the truth; why scatter it among those who openly hate it?
 
Last edited:
I'll DM you so I can forward you a lengthy email I got (basically in transcript form).
Suffice it to say before there was Al Mohler, there was Robert Preus. Though anachronistic, he was the Mohler of Concordia Seminary in the 70s.
If J. Gresham Machen is on one side of the coin, the Preus Brothers are the other side of it - the one the kicked out faithful exile and the other the champion who reclaimed the denomination). Perhaps even more to the point, if Charles Erdman is on one side of the coin (the compromiser who lost the denomination), J.A.O. Preus is the other side of the coin (the confessionalist champion who recovered the seminary and the denomination).

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...g-the-1974-concordia-seminary-walkout.113204/ - The book I reviewed here is a great history.
 
I believe the Hungarian Reformed group in the UCC is still somewhat conservative. There's also probably one-off isolated pockets of faithfulness, especially in a decentralized denomination.
There is a grassroots reform movement within the UCC as well: https://www.faithfulandwelcoming.org/

I have a suspicion that the UCC being quasi-congregationalist allows more autonomy for a congregation to be conservative compared to say the PC(USA).
 
I think I've said this before, but having known Zoomer's presence online years before he gained much traction, and seeing what community his "fame" has ended up creating, I would want nothing to do with this movement. He seems to attach himself to a very large "always online" people who have no sense of the real world, which of course leads into hardcore right-lening movements and thus rampant antisemitism.
In one of his videos he made it fairly clear he sees no defining difference between Romanists and the Protestant church, simply a difference in tradition (is how I remember it being said, but it was clear that he didn't think they had a corrupted gospel).

I'm not sure a person his young should be put on the pedestal he has been put upon.
 
I think I've said this before, but having known Zoomer's presence online years before he gained much traction, and seeing what community his "fame" has ended up creating, I would want nothing to do with this movement. He seems to attach himself to a very large "always online" people who have no sense of the real world, which of course leads into hardcore right-lening movements and thus rampant antisemitism.
In one of his videos he made it fairly clear he sees no defining difference between Romanists and the Protestant church, simply a difference in tradition (is how I remember it being said, but it was clear that he didn't think they had a corrupted gospel).

I'm not sure a person his young should be put on the pedestal he has been put upon.
He is even on record saying he might send his kids to a Catholic school
 
Ruben made a lot of good points. Though I don’t see how this guy could be that deceptive anyway. After all, how much subterfuge can you muster when you’re blasting yourself all over social media and drawing attention to yourself. I think a project like this could be legitimate by a kind of federating or creating presbyteries out of saying more rural PC USA churches for example that still are orthodox. I’m hoping there are some somewhere anyway. The idea, though that you can go into ostensibly looney left churches and by some incremental power take them over in short order is silly. Another option is that since many of these old churches of aging populations and no energetic youth, a missionary minded group could seek to join and provide pulpit supply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top