An Interesting Movement - Reclaiming the Mainline Denominations

[RamistThomist]

Agree with everything here. Zoomer has no business leading anything. As far as I can tell, he is most interested in being a YouTube celebrity. He will never mature in the faith without putting himself under a sound teacher. Also, as others have pointed out, he is a liberal himself.

I asked him if he were being mentored by godly elders. It was a trick question, because he knows he wouldn't let himself be mentored by a priestess.

I haven't listened to Redeemed Zoomer much but it seems to me like this whole project is based on a kind of wonky over-emphasis on a view of the covenant that sees any institution that calls itself Christian as part of the Church and therefore worthy of fighting to reclaim. Is that accurate?

Yes. You left out pretty buildings, and he is eager to correct you on that.

 

[Theoretical]

Do you think there is theological liberalism in the PCA?

Not of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy type, but of the sufficiency of Scripture type, yes.

If you want a reconquista, the Missouri Synod's resurgence and Southern Seminary recoveries are the model to look at. I think especially the LCMS's one is an exceptionally good model for confessional reclamation.

RZ's denomination and the UMC are literally the worst to try this in because they're the most tightly bureaucratically controlled at the national level. Episcopacy ironically has more mechanisms for conservatives, so the Diocese of Fort Worth moved over en masse to ACNA (for better or worse) and Central Florida has a legitimate evangelical as its bishop--Justin Holcomb--(after having one previously). Similarly, more decentralized bodies like the CRC and RCA or the American Baptists can be much more conducive to something like this.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I listened to a couple of podcast interviews he did. His passion for the church and the gospel seem genuine. I wish him well but he seems to be naïve about how church government and bureaucracy work. The fact that the extreme liberals control the institutions of the UMC, PCUSA, and Episcopal churches, and rig the entire bureaucracy, and the fact that even somewhat conservative candidates might be rejected by presbyteries and bishops are not to come into play.

Even if I were convinced by him, there isn’t an even remotely conservative PCUSA or Episcopal church in my area that I’m aware of. He seems to have a good bit of pride and also disdain for the “cowards” who didn’t “stay and fight.”

 

[retroGRAD3]

I listened to a couple of podcast interviews he did. His passion for the church and the gospel seem genuine. I wish him well but he seems to be naïve about how church government and bureaucracy work. The fact that the extreme liberals control the institutions of the UMC, PCUSA, and Episcopal churches, and rig the entire bureaucracy, and the fact that even somewhat conservative candidates might be rejected by presbyteries and bishops are not to come into play.

Even if I were convinced by him, there isn’t an even remotely conservative PCUSA or Episcopal church in my area that I’m aware of. He seems to have a good but of pride and also disdain for the “cowards” who didn’t “stay and fight.”

The fight has been over for 100 years though. Truly conservative pcusa churches haven't been a thing in a long time.

 

[Edward]

Do you think there is theological liberalism in the PCA?

Yes.

 

[mpinckard]

Yes.

Just saying "yes" without qualification to a question about theological liberalism in the PCA makes it sound like you believe that there are churches or at least elders who deny fundamental tenets of the faith. Is that what you mean, or are you saying something more like

Not of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy type, but of the sufficiency of Scripture type, yes.

?

 

[Theoretical]

Just saying "yes" without qualification to a question about theological liberalism in the PCA makes it sound like you believe that there are churches or at least elders who deny fundamental tenets of the faith. Is that what you mean, or are you saying something more like

?

Side B/Revoice stuff is definitely hitting on the sufficiency of scripture to deal with matters of sexual identity and implicitly adopting a Catholic stance on concupiscence for example. Hopefully that's on the way out and not just getting muted to grow in the next generation.

More broadly is the over-use and misuse of brokenness language in place of sin because it makes it both primarily psychological instead of most primarily being against God rather than man (Psalm 51 sense). Brokenness has a place in terms of describing spiritual scarring in a victim, but I've seen and heard it used as more important both in usage and emphasis than the sin problem.

Another big area is those churches that refuse to ordain a diaconate because they can't ordain women, using "cute" commissioning services for their deacons or other ways of getting around the limitation of the diaconate to men in the BCO. More symptomatically beyond that is things like shepherdesses being created as quasi-offices or having women teach or "preach" in various capacities.

With these, Scripture being historical and inspired really doesn't matter, rather it's going to the classic questions of "it was a different time" or that doesn't speak to what modern X says in terms of questions of morality or office.

 

[Edward]

Just saying "yes" without qualification to a question about theological liberalism in the PCA makes it sound like you believe that there are churches or at least elders who deny fundamental tenets of the faith. Is that what you mean, or are you saying something more like

Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with what Scott said, an he was more comprehensive than I would have been. But as to your second question, I'd need to know your definition of 'fundamental tenets of the faith' before I could know whether that would be a 'yes' or a 'no' from me. I would define it more narrowly than I would liberalism.

 

[mpinckard]

Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with what Scott said, an he was more comprehensive than I would have been. But as to your second question, I'd need to know your definition of 'fundamental tenets of the faith' before I could know whether that would be a 'yes' or a 'no' from me. I would define it more narrowly than I would liberalism.

If you're in agreement with Scott then we're mostly on the same page. When I speak of "fundamental tenets of the faith," I mean those articles of the faith that a person/church must believe to be considered actually Christian in any meaningful sense. I don't put errors that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture in its application to life on par with those that cast doubt on or even deny such truths as the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ or penal substitutionary atonement. That's not to say that I think that the errors Scott identified are unimportant--far from it--but I do think the difference is wide enough that we need to be clear what we're talking about.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Is that Redeemed Zoomer's group? He has a lot of talent and zero maturity (in an objective sense). He's still a Barthian of sorts, though he knows enough Patristic theology to correct the worst aspects of Barthianism. He doesn't seem to understand that the PCUSA will fight to the death and burn every church in court before they give up their property. He honestly believes they will play fair.

I've watched a lot of his content and a subscriber of his channel. He's conservative from the PCUSA point of view, but very liberal from a Puritan perspective. He's against gay marriage and LGBT, which should be an obvious thing from us.

Though I know I myself am not that mature compared to older Christians, but I am young (16), and I will grow in the Lord stronger as I age. Redeemed Zoomer will also go through this phase as well.

 

[arapahoepark]

I should Pew sit the UMC near me. Gorgeous building and might make my stomach stronger!

 

[Edward]

I don't put errors that undermine the sufficiency of Scripture in its application to life on par with those that cast doubt on or even deny such truths as the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ or penal substitutionary atonement.

Many theological liberals would probably pass your test.

 

[EmilyF]

He seems to have a good bit of pride and also disdain for the “cowards” who didn’t “stay and fight.”

He came into our Discord server and accused us of this (a boy we are close with managed to get him in via email). It's the only thing aside from the pretty churches concept that comes out of his mouth. Oh, and "you are like Jay Dyer".

 

[mpinckard]

Many theological liberals would probably pass your test.

What test? I didn't propose one.

Editing to add/clarify:
All I was trying to do was ascertain what sort of error you believed to be found in the PCA, because I make a distinction between damnable heresy and serious error and think that distinction matters. I was never proposing a definition of theological liberalism, nor was I making an argument about how we ought to deal with serious error in the PCA. I wasn't even saying that you were wrong if you were claiming there was truly damnable heresy lurking in the PCA, though if that was what you meant I would want to ask more questions.

 

[Edward]

if you were claiming there was truly damnable heresy lurking in the PCA,

Well, there were enough debates around here as to whether the New Perspectives on Paul/ FV and related theology were heresy or merely grave error, so where you come down on that debate would impact the answer to that question (although it's not as prominent as it was a few years ago, it was never completely rooted out). And a couple of gay churches have left the PCA, but depending on where you come down on that issue, it's never been completely rooted out. Although most PCA churches with deaconesses will now note that they are not ordained, that issue is still going strong in the PCA. And, of course, there's creeping padeocommunion.

In any event, I'll stick with my position - if you want to fight liberalism in a denomination, the PCA is a good place to start.

 

[mpinckard]

Well, there were enough debates around here as to whether the New Perspectives on Paul/ FV and related theology were heresy or merely grave error, so where you come down on that debate would impact the answer to that question (although it's not as prominent as it was a few years ago, it was never completely rooted out). And a couple of gay churches have left the PCA, but depending on where you come down on that issue, it's never been completely rooted out. Although most PCA churches with deaconesses will now note that they are not ordained, that issue is still going strong in the PCA. And, of course, there's creeping padeocommunion.

Won't say much more so as not to continue on a subject only tangentially related to the OP, other than to say we must have different definitions of damnable heresy if you're including deaconesses and padeocommunion.

In any event, I'll stick with my position - if you want to fight liberalism in a denomination, the PCA is a good place to start.

Now that I understand what you mean by that, I agree.

 

[Sam Jer]

This was quick

 

[Solparvus]

If you're going to play politics, just remember the devil is always better at it.

 

[ParticularBaptist1677]

This was quick

That was very fast.

 

[ParticularBaptist1677]

My question is, what does it mean to be a conservative in the PCUSA? Because there is much more to conservative theology than just speaking against gay marriage or lady pastors. I am just not aware of the context. For instance, most conservatives in Canada believe hardcore in global warming and everything that goes with that way of thinking about the world.

It made me laugh that he called them a TRAD segment of the PCUSA. #conservativeBUTtrendy

 

[Charles Johnson]

This was quick

I am meek enough to only say "I told you so" a few times, in a moderately loud voice.

 

[Theoretical]

Pre-ECO forming this would have maybe been a hard step for a few more years. Post-ECO, this is exactly what I'd do in the liberals' position. The United Methodists are going to do exactly the same thing with the congregations that weren't able to leave.

With a trust clause in place on the property, they either can choose to keep receiving regular revenues from churches "moderate" enough to stick around or nice buyouts from those that decide to leave and want to take their property with them.

This movement makes the most sense for "big tent" evangelical denominations, semi-mainline or mainline adjacent denominations like the CRC, or even potentially some more congregationalist mainlines and/or consistently conservative Episcopal dioceses. It makes 0 sense for the PCUSA in this day and age.

 

[joebonni63]

Hey all, I came across this website. It's a movement to 'reclaim' the liberal mainline denominations through strengthening what conservative churches remain and letting the liberal churches die off.

Anyone heard of this? Give the website a quick tour and let me know what you think.

Home | Operation Reconquist

www.operationreconquista.com

This is very interesting I dream and think about things like this I used to belong to PCUSA before they started their dissent into the gates of hell. I might back something like this up however I must look into this a little more.

 

[TylerRay]

I used to belong to PCUSA before they started their dissent into the gates of hell.

Like, in the 1920s? Earlier, maybe?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Like, in the 1920s? Earlier, maybe?

Hey, the Southern Presbyterian church was seemingly salvageable until at least sometime in the 50s...

 

[TylerRay]

Hey, the Southern Presbyterian church was seemingly salvageable until at least sometime in the 50s...

True, but the PCUSA was way ahead of the PCUS.