Redeemed Zoomer Crushes Doug Wilson in Debate Over Schism

Recently, there was a debate between Redeemed Zoomer and Doug Wilson over the issue of schism. Redeemed Zoomer (AKA Richard Ackerman) is most famous for his attempt to reconquer the notoriously liberal PCUSA, while Doug Wilson is most known for starting the CREC and building the Moscow ecosystem, which consists of a publishing house, a seminary, digital content, and Christ Church. The debate consists of a clash of both generations and ministerial approach.

The question of schism is one that is very much on brand for Redeemed Zoomer. He posits that the church Tradition views separation from established churches with great condemnation, from the patristics to the Reformed tradition—often citing Samuel Rutherford and Robert Bailey. He argues that the CREC is inherently schismatic, which is the crux of his thesis. To his standard for what is not schism, Redeemed Zoomer posited that the Reformation was justified due to Rome’s demand to affirm false doctrine, which he later elaborates that they bind consciences to these doctrines, unlike the mainlines.

Doug Wilson’s arguments are not so much grounded in historicity but more practicality. This was a general weakness of Wilson’s approach within a debate format, but there were merits to his position. He would contend that refusing to honor the baptism of a new member from a differing denomination or recognize the ordination of a pastor of said denomination would constitute schism. He would reject that schism is inherently rooted in a particular ecclesiology.

Redeemed Zoomer is able to effectively wield the tradition and writings to his favor, citing that Athanasius remained in the Church during the days of Arianism rather than leaving. Wilson is not effectively able to respond to this example; however, his counter example of the Methodists does expose the absurd inconsistency of his opponent’s position. Wilson argued that Redeemed Zoomer’s position must posit that the Methodists were schismatic from the Anglican Church but Ackerman countered by stating that only the English Methodists were schismatic because there were no American bishops post-Revolution. The distinction between English and American Methodists is rather unconvincing, as this paints one camp as illegitimate versus the other based on one facet of geographical proximity to a particular ecclesiology rather than a comprehensive overview of their theological distinctions. Furthermore, it is from American Methodism that much of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements sprouted, so much of the “schematicism” of American Protestantism could be traced to the Wesleyan tradition.

One interesting element is Ackerman’s invocation of Samuel Rutherford and the Westminster Divines. He contends that the only basis by which one can start their own church is geography, that is, being in a separate country. Each country ought to have its own denomination. While it is logical for a nation to have its own church, the idea that the sin of schism recognizes borders is not well supported in Scripture. Rutherford, a Westminster Divine, was establishmentarian in his theology (as is reflected in the 1646 Confession), so naturally he would argue for the Church of Scotland. Neither the PCUSA nor PCA are overtly establishmentarian in their confession. He also had greater cause for optimism in his project since the Church of Scotland was being reformed back to what John Knox had achieved in his lifetime a generation earlier. The fight for the Scottish and English churches entailed wars that spanned decades, not merely showing up to synods and voting.

America does not have established churches, which undermines Ackerman’s position and leads him to conclude that the PCA and OPC are schismatic from the PCUSA. Ironically, he praises the ARP which is descended from those who protested the Church of Scotland. He does lean on himself to be the judge of what is and is not schism, but American Christianity is more complicated, especially factoring in geographic distinctions within and the historical effects of the Civil War.

To charge the CREC with schism would be more reasonable if one was not broad-brushing the term against superior denominations. The CREC could be described as schismatic in its origins and was often fueled by being deviant on the Westminster Standard, most notably on paedocommunion and the Federal Vision theology—though the two are incredibly overlapping. Wilson is very much a theological pioneer to his own detriment, which, in a debate format, is difficult for him to defend. The CREC requires exceptions to its Memorials. This is a polity that elevates secondary issues to the level of the confessional standards. Redeemed Zoomer could have made a stronger case going into their polity, but he sticks mainly to the historic church. If anything, the polity and theological distinctions of the CREC are more schismatic than its origins.

Wilson’s ignorance on church history, including Presbyterian history, is a major weakness for him in this debate, and Redeemed Zoomer grills him throughout. That said, Redeemed Zoomer’s rigidity is his greatest weakness. Wilson calls out his binary mindset regarding schism, as Ackerman’s standard is so broad that a man who moves across country but goes to a church of a different denomination to his own could be accused of schism. It also could imply that Ackerman’s position would require one to join the PCUSA even if they were a lifelong member of the PCA or OPC, which would be in line with his public persona. These are considerations Wilson attempts to convey during the debate.

Left undebated was whether the PCUSA demands one affirm false doctrine, that while Ackerman would deny since the PCUSA still upholds its creeds, they most certainly require the affirmation of false doctrine, starting with the ordination of women. In Presbyterian polity, there are often membership vows, binding them via the third commandment, so one is required to submit to their female elder, which is to require them to submit to something Scripture calls an illegitimate authority. The denomination also requires ordained clergy to affirm homosexual rights and other antinomian practices while their synods are woke assemblies.

To say that just because they hold to the Westminster Standards (with numerous exceptions) means that they are still the true Presbyterian church in America is an absurdity. The beliefs that the PCUSA would demand one assent to are far more egregious than even those dictated by Rome.

Conclusion

This is a debate where Redeemed Zoomer won, but it does not indicate that his arguments are correct or being properly applied. Doug Wilson is not really a prolific debater, as was seen in his debates against Jared Moore and Auron MacIntyre. Redeemed Zoomer’s victory is much like Jake Paul beating up a washed-up athlete who played a different sport than boxing. His arguments had plenty of vulnerability amidst modern dynamics, while his rigid interpretation makes absurd conclusions that would be spiritually dangerous in application.