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.

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.

Read More