Machen’s Peaceful Grandchildren

The 88th General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church meeting in August of 2025 voted 37-5 to apply for membership in NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council). This decision may be a surprise to some who know the BPC for its history of ecclesiastical separation. But a review of Synod records shows that the decision was a long time coming, and even, as I will argue, a decision in accord with the BPC’s long-held views. Further it can be seen as one of a number of events that evidence a peace-making attitude among “Machen’s grandchildren” (a segment of today’s conservative American presbyterians).

John Frame’s 2003 article “Machen’s Warrior Children” argued that the conservative American presbyterians who left the PCUSA with J. Gresham Machen over its liberal theology soon “turned inward to battle among themselves” following Machen’s unexpected death. The battles Frame describes—regarding twenty-one theological issues—often played out among the denominations Machen’s supporters formed: the OPC, BPC, and even the PCA (especially through the RPCES).

Now, a generation (or two) down the line, we find “Machen’s Grandchildren” or even “Machen’s Great-Grandchildren,” and while there have been few denominational mergers among conservative American Presbyterians (the main one being the PCA-RPCES “joining and receiving”), there is now a greater spirit of peacemaking in that, for example, the OPC and the BPC are in a fraternal relationship, and that thirteen (perhaps soon fourteen) conservative Reformed denominations are working together at some level in NAPARC.

But what of the BPC’s recent decision to join NAPARC? Has the denomination gone soft? Hardly. Their joining of NAPARC is consistent with their long-held views. The BPC’s view of ecclesiastical separation has always been primarily to separate from apostate churches. A 2001 Synod committee chaired by Dr. John Battle well explained:

It is proper and expedient for true churches to join together in various relations to express their spiritual unity and for cooperation and mutual benefit. This may be done by forming organizations or agencies to which churches belong, or by direct ties of fraternal relations. In entering into these relations churches retain their distinctive beliefs and practices while still recognizing the fundamental basis of unity of the entire visible church. Because this underlying unity is assumed, it would be sinful for a true church to enter into such relations with an apostate church.

In the case of apostate churches it is an easy judgment; ecclesiastical fellowship is not possible if the denomination or council in question is apostate. BPC Synod minutes have noted the following as apostate: PCUSA (in 1939 and many other references), Federal Council of Churches of Christ (1942, etc.), PCUS (1953), World Presbyterian Alliance (1963), Roman Catholic Church (1965), Reformed Church in America (1966), World Council of Churches (1971), and the Congregational Church (1977). None of the NAPARC congregations have ever been called apostate in the Synod minutes at least.

Fellowship is at least possible with non-apostate churches. But, there are often other issues to ecclesiastical fellowship. In certain cases therefore a difficult judgment must be made.

The 2001 report noted,

Relations between even true churches are improper if the distinctive beliefs of either church are violated or compromised by the terms of the relation, since it is sinful to go against one’s conscience, even in the interests of Christian unity.

Relations with true churches which themselves have relations with apostate churches, either directly or through membership in ecclesiastical organizations or agencies, are improper, since our separation from those apostate churches would be compromised. Otherwise, relations with true churches fall in the realm of expediency, and no barriers necessarily prevent such relations.

This latter point entails that the BPC would not have ecclesiastical fellowship through NAPARC while NAPARC-member PCA was a member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), if there are apostate churches in NAE. But in 2022 the PCA withdrew from the NAE which helped pave the way for the BPC’s recent decision.

The BPC has been exploring the possibility of joining NAPARC for many years. NAPARC was founded in 1975 and by 1990 the BPC had sent an advisor to the council meeting. That year the chair of the BPC’s Interchurch Committee, Rev. Kevin Backus, reported, “I attended the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (NAPARC) meeting as an observer. It was very helpful to make contact with other reformed bodies present. As an organization, I do not believe that we would be comfortable because of trends of some of their larger members, notably the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Presbyterian Church in American (PCA).” The same committee in 1996 reported, “We commend the OPC for its recent action to suspend fraternal relations with the CRC. We also commend the OPC for initiating steps to enable NAPARC to suspend and ultimately remove the CRC from its membership.” In 2012 the BPC committee recommended “that we take no further action as a Synod in reference to NAPARC until such a time as its its new purpose statement is finished and that we delay entering into membership while the PCA, with its current attitudes, is still a member.” Yet, since then observers have been sent each year from the BPC to NAPARC.

As NAPARC is merely an advisory council, it is in many ways more notable that the BPC has developed fraternal relationships with certain denominations through the years. The BPC has fraternal relationships with the Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery (since 1995), with the Heritage Reformed Congregations (since 2017), and most notably, with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In 2005 the BPC voted 16-14 in favor of establishing a fraternal relationship with the OPC. Since then these two denominations—which split soon after Machen’s death—have been working together in some ways (though a merger has not been in the cards nor expected).

Ultimately the vote to join NAPARC and the votes to establish fraternal relationships with various denominations have been judgment calls to be made by the body, the Synod. Though some voted against these ecclesiastical relationships, the existence of the relationships themselves are not out of accord with historic BPC views.

That the BPC always has allowed the possibility of such ecclesiastical relationships is evidenced in their membership for many years in the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC). The BPC joined the ACCC as a founding member in the early 1940s and remained in the organization until 2013. It would be difficult to argue in favor of being a member of ACCC but against membership in NAPARC as the former has member denominations that are not even Reformed.

Still, there is a change evident among Machen’s grandchildren. I contend there is less in-fighting among this generation of conservative American Presbyterians. This is evidenced by the BPC’s fraternal relationships, the growth of NAPARC, and various other developments. Within the BPC, for example, there’s always technically been liberty on eschatology, but in our day the liberty is much more prominent as perhaps half of the denomination is chiliast (premillennial) and the other half anti-chiliast (postmillennial or amillennial).

Personally I’ve seen this peaceful attitude in a number of other places. For one, while in the early days of the internet there was seemingly no end to theological debate, it is much quieter these day with, for example, far fewer posts on Puritanboard.net. The Trinity Foundation has likewise been quieter since John Robbins passed away in 2008, and my friend Sean Gerety (who has done some great writing against Federal Vision among other subjects) doesn’t blog much these days.

Then, back in 2017 my biography of Gordon H. Clark (a founder of the OPC, and very nearly a member of the BPC at the end of his life) was published, and based on all of the theological debate previously on the subject of the Clark – Van Til controversy, I was expecting a firestorm of responses to the book. Yet, I received almost universally positive responses. I waited for the criticisms and attacks but they never came. Maybe, I thought for a while, I researched and wrote such a thorough book that no one dare respond! (Doubtful!) Then, for a few years, I attributed the lack of response to the idea that Van Tillianism was waning in many circles. Now, I think perhaps we’re just a bit calmer these days; Machen’s peaceful grandchildren (or great-grandchildren) do not want to continue rehashing the same debates over and over again. Even when I was doing research on the biography and spoke with John Frame via email, he basically told me that he didn’t want to discuss the issues of the Clark – Van Til Controversy because he was tired of them.

Why is it that Machen’s grandchildren are more peaceful than his children? There are certainly many factors, but one must be the average age of the ministers and elders. When the OPC and BPC formed the ministers were relatively young, for the old men did not always leave the PCUSA and their pensions there. But today, the denominations roll of ministers are greatly populated by later-career baby boomers with the patience and peacemaking spirit that comes with age. They are not brash young ministers but “Quiet Ministers” with presence.

Though Machen’s grandchildren may be more peaceful than the preceding generation, the BPC will always be influenced by the “Fighting Fundamentalists” of its history, and can still claim among its members Dr. John Battle who certainly has the best surname in the denomination.