This section of his message has prompted a good deal of discussion, and it’s fair to ask if these characterizations make sense. The first pressure in his list, “Reformed fundamentalism,” raised the most eyebrows. Perhaps Dr. Chapell will clarify his intent, but in the meantime it’s worth considering the meaning and advisability of such a term.

The nominee for Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America has been chosen by the Administrative Committee. Dr. Bryan Chapell is surely a capable and experienced churchman, and many would consider him to be a moderate, consensus-building candidate. He has not been reticent, though, to characterize factions and divisions in the PCA or the “pressures” the denomination faces, and he did so again in his message that accompanied the announcement of the nomination.

“Our historic strength,” wrote Chapell, “has been maintaining a Bible-centered mission that does not yield to the singular pressures of Reformed fundamentalism, distinction-less Evangelicalism, mere social progressivism, or strident political conservatism. Each of these emphases have sought ascendency in our ranks, yet we have continued to evaluate ideas and establish priorities based on Scripture.”

This section of his message has prompted a good deal of discussion, and it’s fair to ask if these characterizations make sense. The first pressure in his list, “Reformed fundamentalism,” raised the most eyebrows. Perhaps Dr. Chapell will clarify his intent, but in the meantime it’s worth considering the meaning and advisability of such a term. Dr. Chapell was president of the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network (now defunct) which supported the adoption of “good faith” subscription around the turn of the 21st century. Maybe the “Reformed fundamentalists” are those who opposed the loosening of confessional subscription, preferring a narrower or less broad view of adherence to the Westminster standards.

The term is relatively new — certainly not in general use. It has no accepted meaning. Interestingly, The Gospel Coalition has helped propagate it:

“…Collin Hanson was asked about the challenges being faced by groups like T4G and TGC. He replied that one of the greatest threats presently was being posed by ‘reformed fundamentalists’ operating from inside the boundaries of the movement.”  

Now, influential as TGC and T4G are, it’s not yet fair to assume that whatever is true of these New Calvinist parachurch movements is also true of the PCA though Dr. Chapell and several other influential PCA pastors are TGC council members. It would be interesting to know if he agrees with the TGC article’s definition:

“A reformed fundamentalist is first and foremost (headings follow): Someone who is willing to fight, condemn and divide over secondary issues…Someone who has no category between good and bad…Someone who talks more about their creed than they do about Christ…Someone who thinks it’s dangerous to associate with people outside their tribe”

One of the few other definitions online (Wikipedia) describes Reformed fundamentalism as “a movement that arose in some conservative Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, and other Reformed churches, which also agreed with the motives and aims of broader evangelical Protestant fundamentalism. Some of the better known leaders who have described themselves as both Calvinist and fundamentalist have been Carl McIntire of the American Bible Presbyterian Church and Ian Paisley of the Northern Irish Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.”

We might have missed them, but Paisleyites and McIntire men have been in pretty short supply in the PCA lately. Does the movement (if it exists) rise to the level of a “singular pressure”? It’s hard to imagine that it does.

Maybe the Reformed fundamentalists are supposed to be those that John Frame has dubbed “Machen’s Warrior Children.” There are yet some lonely souls in the PCA who invoke the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Westminster Seminary. They love to quote his famous words of almost 100 years ago: “In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” But how much doctrinal warfare is really being waged in the PCA of 2020? Recent assemblies have been fairly collegial, even with some real hot-button issues in play.

Or maybe the Reformed fundamentalists are just those presbyters often referred to (by their opponents in social media communications at last year’s General Assembly) as “doctrinalists,” which may be just another synonym for “confessionalists.”

So much for Reformed fundamentalists. The second pressure on Chapell’s list seems if anything more plausible — “distinction-less Evangelicalism,” given the fact that the PCA seems content to remain in the broad National Association of Evangelicals and that many PCA churches seem nearly as committed to non-denominational parachurch networks as to their own body. Still, all PCA elders are confessionalists of a sort unlike their evangelical brethren.

The other two “pressures” are decidedly political in nature. Does “mere social progressivism” danger really pose a threat? Certainly, there’s some diversity of secular political opinion in the PCA, but is there really pressure to adopt progressive stances on social issues? Indeed, use of the term “progressive” to describe a portion of the PCA was employed by Chapell himself in his 2015 article “The State of the PCA” in which he wrote, “The denomination, as a whole, is clearly divided between traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” One assumes the progressives in view are not the “mere social” variety. Chapell also referred to “hungry progressives” in the PCA in a 2010 presentation promoting the Strategic Plan. Chapell worked for years on the plan’s formulation and for approval of the plan which has served as the blueprint for a number of initiatives since, including racial reconciliation and the women in ministry study committee.

The other alleged political pressure in the PCA is “strident political conservatism.” Again, the adjective is the curious part. Is political conservatism fine as long as it’s not unwinsomely strident? Is progressivism wonderful provided it is not merely social?

Clearly, Chapell’s laudable desire is to promote a moderate, middle way to unity, growth, and influence for the PCA. But it’s fair to ask, is using terms and modifiers that are both loaded and indefinite really the best way forward to promote unity?

Brad Isbell is a Ruling Elder in Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oak Ridge, Tenn.