In June 1937, a year after the formation of the Presbyterian Church of America (soon to be renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church), the new church divided, with the group that broke off taking the name Bible Presbyterian Synod. The more fundamentalistic group that left was largely premillennial and advocated total abstinence from beverage alcohol. As the OPC approaches its centennial, the church appears to contain a growing element of new fundamentalists. Ironically, members of this group might be found smoking cigars and sipping whiskey (in moderation), and their eschatology might be postmillennial. Is this really a new fundamentalism?

Our Early History

The historian George M. Marsden reflects on the apparent unity of the diverse group of presbyters who formed the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America, formed decades later):

The men who met together in the First General Assembly of the PCA were well aware that they were not of one mind on every detail of doctrine and practice. Yet, from all appearances, they had reason to believe that their essential agreement in their common faith would far outweigh their differences as to detail. All agreed that the Scriptures were the infallible Word of God, that the Westminster Standards contained the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and that the principles of Presbyterian church government were founded upon the Word of God.[1]

The battle in which the new church was engaged was a conflict between historic Christianity and those who denied the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. In Christianity and Liberalism J. Gresham Machen argued that theological liberalism was incompatible with historic, biblical Christianity—one is faced with a choice.[2] At the same time, he recognized that some who held to liberal views, such as the denial of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, might still be trusting in Christ for their salvation.[3] The issue was one of principle, not personalities.

In that conflict within American Presbyterianism, conservative, confessional men and women joined forces with fundamentalists as co-combatants. While Machen strongly disliked being identified as a fundamentalist, he was willing to work with them in a common cause when the truth of Scripture was at stake. He stated in 1926:

Do you suppose, gentlemen, that I do not detect faults in many popular defenders of supernatural Christianity? Do you suppose that I do not regret being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a “Fundamentalist”? Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God. I must continue to support an unpopular cause.[4]

Machen’s zeal was for a full-orbed faith that proclaimed the whole counsel of God (words reproduced in the seal of the seminary he founded). Reflecting on his own early training in the Word he observed:

When a man has come into sympathetic contact with that noble tradition of the Reformed faith, he will never be satisfied with a mere “Fundamentalism” that seeks in some hasty modern statement a greatest common measure between men of different creeds. Rather, he will strive always to stand in the great central current of the church’s life that has come down to us through Augustine and Calvin to the Standards of the Reformed faith.[5]

Once the PCA/OPC was formed in 1936, competing interests began to test the unity of the church. Three primary areas of theological disagreement surfaced: eschatology, Christian liberty, and church polity.[6] Marsden argues convincingly that none of these issues alone was sufficient to cause the division of 1937.[7] He also suggests that the competing view that the division was caused by political and personal differences, while containing an element of truth, fails to account adequately for the split.[8]

Marsden suggests: “The two traditions do not represent two incompatible theological traditions. Rather, they represent two approaches to the same tradition.” He explains:

Each side had a vision of what the new church should be like. The minority saw a Bible-believing church witnessing to the world both in the preaching of the Word and the “separated life.” The majority saw an orthodox church whose witness would reflect an informed study of the scriptural principles of the church and its work. The two visions are not incompatible. But at a time when the differences, rather than the similarities are emphasized it becomes difficult for one to sympathize with the emphases of the other.[9]

My concern is with a rising influence of a fundamentalistic emphasis in the courts of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church—so why look at our history? First, it reminds us that this trend may not be as new as we might think. Examining our past may help us avoid repeating problems. Second, looking at our history may help us realize that our options today may be more nuanced than we think.

A Cautionary Note

The words fundamentalist and fundamentalism can be emotionally loaded terms, easily weaponized. They can be used to label someone who holds a view slightly to the right of one’s own, while the terms progressive, liberal, or woke are applied to those whose views are slightly to the left. When that happens, the labels have become a substitute for thoughtful consideration. The potential for misuse, however, does not mean that the words have ceased to have meaning. The goal in this essay is to use them honestly as tools, not as weapons.

The Old Fundamentalism

Carl McIntire, leader of the group that left in 1937, exemplifies the old fundamentalism in this description by Marsden:

While the majority of the newly formed denomination, including the closest associates of J. Gresham Machen at Westminster Seminary, took clearly conservative (or Old School) positions on the divisive issues, the minority led by McIntire took positions not only more typically fundamentalistic but also remarkably similar to those taken by the New School a century earlier. The specific programs for which McIntire and his associates fought were (1) tolerance of a doctrine (dispensational pre-millennialism) which the majority in the church considered incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith; (2) continuation of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, rather than forming an official denominational missions board; and (3) adoption by the general assembly of a statement that total abstinence from all that may intoxicate is “the only true principle of temperance”—precisely the statement first adopted by the New School general assembly of 1840. These programs, together with McIntire’s claim to represent “American Presbyterianism” (a former New School term), his avid (anti-Communist) patriotism, his zeal for revivalism and legalistic reforms, his emphasis on interdenominational cooperation, and his lack of concern for strict Presbyterian polity all suggest a continuation of distinctly New School traditions within the fundamentalistic wing of Presbyterianism.[10]

That kind of fundamentalism might seem to have vanished from the OPC. No one is arguing for dispensationalism, and although most officers hold to some form of amillennialism, there are some historic premillennialists and postmillennialists among us. The church seems committed to working through its denominational committees. Few officers would advocate for total abstinence.

Advocacy of total abstinence came in response to an awareness of the sin of drunkenness and the harmful consequences of the abuse of alcohol. But the remedy went beyond Scripture. The atheism of communism threatened the US and the world, but McIntire’s fight against it pulled the church away from its primary focus, towards a political agenda.

McIntire and company’s support for dispensational premillennialism was likely an unbalanced reaction to the view of theological liberals that human progress was introducing a golden age. Our culture seems persuaded of pessimism regarding the future.

In 1936 the idea that one could simply select his or her own gender was unthinkable. Less than a century later, the church faces significant challenges as it serves her Lord in an apostate culture. Today, one’s feelings override creational considerations as one chooses who (insert the appropriate pronoun) wants to be. While abortion was not unknown in the first third of the twentieth century, even unbelievers generally regarded it as evil. Today it is legal in many jurisdictions and celebrated in some circles. The propaganda of “death with dignity” cuts short human life at the other end of the age spectrum. Even the church needs the reminder that “we do not have to participate in our culture’s sacraments of death.”[11]

The New Fundamentalism

The challenges facing the church in the early twenty-first century have not become simpler. The Reformed church does not always avoid the temptations of fundamentalism. In the OPC a Reformed patriarchal fundamentalism has emerged in the battle against unbelief. In examining the history of our church we have the advantage of perspective, a historical distance that is obviously absent from looking at current trends. What follows is somewhat anecdotal, but we dare not wait decades for perspective if some of our actions in church courts show less than helpful trends.

Who Sets Our Moral Compass?

When the church allows her mission to be determined by the world instead of the Word of God, she engages in fatal compromise. That is the route of theological liberalism, which remains a constant threat. But equally destructive of the mission of the church is allowing herself to be guided simply by opposing whatever momentary fads and ungodly practices happen to prevail. When the world co-opts the church into adopting its agenda, theological liberalism and the social gospel are the result. In reaction, the Bible-believing church can move in the direction of taking the opposite tack from the world’s. But that can mean that, no less than a drift into liberalism, the church is setting her course, not by turning first to Scripture, but rather by what she sees as the opposite of the direction of the world. In that case, it is still the compass of the world, rather than that of the Word, which determines the direction of the church.

The reaction to the term abuse illustrates this problem. The author of this article would be considered by some to be an abuser simply because he is a male of Caucasian descent. Similarly, all females and people of color might be considered victims. The church must oppose such nonsense, pointing instead to the Word, which commands us to speak the truth while also warning against the sin of oppression. But when the church is so afraid of the term abuse that it minimizes acts of oppression that occur within the church and Christian families, it is moving in a fundamentalistic direction. If the default reaction to an allegation of sinful oppressive behavior is to dismiss the report as “feminism” or “the OPC me-too movement,” the church is in real danger of failing to act with the justice which the Lord requires.

That opposition to the term abuse was illustrated during the 88th (2022) General Assembly. A presbytery had overtured the Assembly to form a committee to “collect, study, and develop resources on topics related to the many forms of abuse that manifest themselves in the church (sexual, domestic, ecclesiastical, verbal, emotional, psychological, etc.)” and to help “equip officers, sessions, and presbyteries to recognize and respond to allegations and instances of abuse in ways that honor Jesus Christ. . . .” The advisory committee to which the overture was assigned recommended the adoption of the overture, but a minority strongly opposed doing so, partly on the grounds of the misuse of the term by the world. Although the Assembly did set up a committee, its mandate was amended to remove reference to abuse. The committee was to “collect, study, and develop resources to equip the officers of the church to protect her members from sexual predators and domestic violence.”[12] A portion of the church seems reluctant to recognize that abuse can be multi-faceted and can occur within the church and her families.

Patriarchy

North American culture tends to deny or at least undermine parental authority in the home as well as ecclesiastical and governmental authority. Christians, recognizing that it is ultimately God who has established authority in the home, in the church, and in government, need to oppose such false teaching. The correction, however, must be biblically focused and balanced, not simply reactionary. I am concerned to find some, even in Reformed circles, embracing the term patriarchy.

Perhaps support for patriarchy arises because it is an in-your-face reaction to unbiblical egalitarianism. One might question whether that approach actually serves to persuade people to adopt a more biblical view, or is its impact primarily one of leaving the so-called patriarch feeling that he has made a statement for the record? The baggage that accompanies the term makes it less than useful in our culture. Concerns about the term are more basic, however. The Scriptures, while calling on fathers to be godly leaders in their homes, do not summon us to emulate the patriarchs. Yes, Peter uses the term to describe David, and Hebrews attaches it to Abraham. But when Stephen uses the term twice in his sermon in Acts 7, it refers to Joseph’s siblings selling him as a slave.

I fear that much of the support for patriarchy grows out of a less than faithful following of Scripture. Aristotle had a profound influence, not only on Greek philosophy but also on thinking in the centuries that followed. He explicitly claimed that, based on nature, males are naturally superior to females: “Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.”[13]

Aristotle’s view of women infiltrated the theology of the early church (just as Plato’s dualism tended to make some identify evil with the physical and material—arguably influencing the total abstinence movement in fundamentalist circles even among those who never read Plato). The early church, with its biblical basis, often treated women much better than pagan Romans did. Yet sometimes women were seen as inferior and a source of temptation. One can trace similar sentiments through theologians of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods.

Puritan pastor William Gouge wrote of the God-given responsibilities of various members of the household. He structures duties of wives in terms of being subordinate and inferior, arguing not only that this is God’s command, but also echoing language similar to Aristotle’s:

Nature has placed an eminency in the male over the female: so as where they are linked together in one yoke, it is given by nature that he should govern, she obey. This did the heathen by light of nature observe.[14]

He adds of wives, “Their very opinion, affection, speech, action, and all that concerns the husband, must savor of subjection.”[15] It is not surprising that Gouge is cited by some advocates of patriarchy in support of their view that women are inferior. Yet, a careful reading shows that he is no friend of men who would use their position in an oppressive manner:

Husbands are most of all bound to love: and bound to love their wives most of all. Thus this affection of love is a distinct duty in itself, peculiarly appertaining to a husband: and also a common condition which must be annexed to every other duty of a husband, to season and sweeten the same. His look, his speech, his carriage, and all his actions, wherein he has to do with his wife, must be seasoned with love.[16]

Thankfully, the church sometimes displays a blessed inconsistency. We need to be cautious about labeling others “good guys” or “bad guys.”

In some circles a search for biblical support for submission of wives to husbands led to the false teaching of the eternal subordination of the Son. A member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Rachel Green Miller,[17] among others, took a lead in opposing that error. In recent years I have read postings by young ministers arguing that women are ontologically inferior to men. Where that kind of theology exists, it is not surprising if women are treated as less than men.

In contrast, the creation account in Genesis 1 emphasizes that God created mankind male and female, both in his image. Dominion, rather than being a masculine concept, is given to both men and women. One of our secondary standards, the Confession of Faith 4.2, reflects that Scriptural balance:

After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

A Way Forward?

In 1937 the distrust between the fundamentalists and the rest of the church was strong enough that the church divided. Nearly ninety years later, can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church remain united? Both sides may be tempted to dismiss the other, but can we do so in the face of the apostolic admonition, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor. 12:21)? Take seriously our Lord’s high priestly prayer for the unity of his body, the church. Marsden’s observation on the 1937 division, included in a quote above, is worth reflection: “At a time when the differences, rather than the similarities are emphasized it becomes difficult for one to sympathize with the emphases of the other.”[18]

Christ’s call that we be one summons us to humility that truly listens to one another, to hear concerns rather than quickly dismissing them. It requires the grace to accept criticism, which, even if not fully accurate, may contain an element of truth.

Ordained Servant is intended to serve officers in the church. When we are tempted to be defensive of our own authority, perhaps we need to remember that underlying special office in the church is the general office of believer. R. B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ contains an excellent chapter on “The Universal Office”:

There are in the church three offices. They represent Christ, the Head of the church as prophet, as priest and as king. Now each church member holds not merely one or even two of these offices, but all three. Every single church member is at once a prophet, a priest and a king. That surely spells glory.[19]

After providing Scriptural support for his position and expressing concern that the universal office is not being exercised adequately, he concludes, “In every age every living member of the body of Christ is undeniably a partaker of Christ’s anointing and hence a prophet, a priest and a king.”[20]

The Form of Government of the OPC recognizes the importance of the general office of believer:

The power which Christ has committed to his church is not vested in the special officers alone, but in the whole body. All believers are endued with the Spirit and called of Christ to join in the worship, edification, and witness of the church which grows as the body of Christ fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in due measure of each part.[21]

Most important is a willingness to do the hard work of studying the Scriptures together as we seek to be faithful to our Lord. I am not aware of any ordained officer in the OPC who would deny that the Scriptures are our final authority. Yet an incident following a recent General Assembly left me wondering if we are willing to invest in the effort to really study the Word together.

A session, while supporting ordination to special office of qualified males, had taken a position (though had not implemented it) that allowed a woman to lead in studies and groups which included both women and men outside of worship services. A member of the church raised a complaint. The position of the session is one on which significant differences exist within the OPC, as is evidenced by the fact that the session denied the complaint and the presbytery involved denied the complainant’s appeal. The General Assembly, however, sustained the appeal. Several factors likely contributed to that decision, including a short time for debate due to a crowded docket. But the significant argument in favor of sustaining the complaint, the argument that prevailed, was that the practice was a compromise with feminism. The sustaining of the complaint drew a strongly worded protest, concerned about narrowing the church beyond Scriptural requirements.

Shortly after the Assembly, one of the fathers in the church who had not been present at the Assembly asked me about that action. This minister had contributed substantially to the exegetical work in study reports to the General Assembly, including “Women in Office” (1988) and “Unordained Persons in Worship” (1991).[22] My friend asked whether the Assembly’s sustaining the appeal of the complaint meant that it had rejected the exegesis in those papers. My painful response was, “No, the Assembly did not reject your exegesis—it did not even consider it.” Had the Assembly rejected what I consider solid exegesis of Scripture, it would have been bad. But what was worse, it never bothered to deal seriously with exegesis as it made its decision. We were being guided by opposition to what was perceived as worldly feminism, rather than asking first, “What does Scripture say?”

The concerns about what I perceive as a tendency towards patriarchal fundamentalism are serious. Yet, given our common commitment to our Lord and to his Word, we must strive together to reflect the balance of Scripture in what we say and do. Are we willing to proclaim the Word fearlessly, despite the opposition of the world? (Reminders from our more fundamentalistic brothers and sisters may be helpful here.) Are we willing to submit all our thinking and speaking to that Word instead of simply reacting to the world? (The fundamentalists among us may need to listen carefully at this point.) May the Lord give us humility, grace, and wisdom!

Endnotes

[1] George M. Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1966), 301.

[2] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 2009) 2, 7, 13.

[3] Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 64.

[4] Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Bibliographic Memoir (Eerdmans, 1955), 337–38.

[5] J. Gresham Machen, “Christianity in Conflict,” in Selected Shorter Writings (P&R Publishing, 2004), 551.

[6] Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” 321.

[7] Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” 321.

[8] Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” 322.

[9] Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” 323.

[10] George M. Marsden, “The New School Heritage and Presbyterian Fundamentalism,” in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1966), 179.

[11] Peter Kreeft, in a lecture at George Fox University, 17 February 2017.

[12] Minutes of the 88th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Article 152.

[13] Politics, Book 1, Part V. See also Book 1, Part XII and Book 7, Part III for similar statements.

[14] William Gouge, Of Domestic Duties, Kindle Edition, loc. 4611.

[15] Gouge, Of Domestic Duties, 4590.

[16] Gouge, Of Domestic Duties, 6031.

[17] Rachel Green Miller, Beyond Authority and Submission: Women and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society (P&R, 2019).

[18] Miller, Beyond Authority and Submission, 323.

[19] R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 126.

[20] Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ, 131.

[21] The Form of Government of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 3.1, “The Nature and Exercise of Church Power,” in The Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church).

[22] https://opc.org/ga_reports.html. Those reports were produced as the OPC was dealing with churches that were moving in the direction of women’s ordination. In my view, while always subject to further review and study, they contain excellent exegetical work and present a balanced view.

John W. Mahaffy serves as the pastor of Trinity Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Newberg, Oregon. Ordained Servant Online, June, 2025.