In my review of Atwood's Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius, I mentioned an AI search experiment I conducted, in which I plugged in various doctrinal parameters I was seeking, such as high doctrinal focus, high worship, and a high view of sacraments, along with non-violence, Kingdom ethics, and a rejection of wealth. The program argued that my positions were contradictory and had no historical precedent - which is not true on multiple fronts. But after stating this, it granted one exception - the Unitas Fratrum, the Unity of the Brethren, or Bohemian Brethren. They are known by these names and more.
I was mildly impressed that it was able to deduce that from the extant data.
If I added in things like non-violence, it kept the Unitas solution even though this question is in reality somewhat complicated. The Brethren abandoned the ethics of Chelčický and Řehoř during the time of Lucas of Prague but they never fully embraced the Magisterial Reformation's posture toward the state, power, Christendom, and war. This point remains true even into the Moravian epoch.
Now when I dropped non-violence and some of the other ethics-related terms and just focused on 'separatism', I did one get additional 'hit' and I found it interesting.
It was the Free Presbyterian Church.
No wonder the 'non-violence' addition excluded them! And this touches on my rather conflicted feelings about this group.
I loathe their origin story. It goes back to the mid-20th century and Ian Paisley (1926-2014) who I believe to have been a very misguided and deceived man. He was connected to Unionist paramilitaries in Ulster and the whole mess associated with The Troubles. He certainly had blood on his hands and yet ironically he's also one of the political leaders who helped solidify the 1998 Good Friday agreement (which he initially opposed) with the power-sharing St. Andrews Agreement of 2006, which paved the way for the joint-government we see at present - a Sinn Fein First Minister Michelle O'Neill and her deputy the Unionist (DUP) member Emma Little-Pengelly.
To many Unionists this was a betrayal and after thirty-plus years, many in Paisley's party turned against him with some breaking away and forming a new party. But aside from the politics, Paisley was also a pastor and instrumental in forming the Free Presbyterian Church.
It's one of a few Presbyterian bodies that's also Fundamentalist - a strange combination in some respects. They are Separatists in terms of the ecumenical movement and Evangelicalism. Obviously in the context of Northern Irish politics they are anything but separatist.
Now the North American version of the Free Presbyterian Church became independent from Ulster in the early 2000's and yet Paisley is still revered - something I consider problematic in addition to the fact that I detest Presbyterian polity.
Here's the odd thing. This group doesn't really hob-nob with Confessional Presbyterians. You don't tend to encounter them running in say OPC or PCA circles. Their group has historically been closely associated with Bob Jones University, a Fundamentalist stronghold that's more associated with Baptist and Dispensational doctrine - and for a long time with Southern Segregation.
In years past, you might even run into Ian Paisley at a Christian book store in Greenville, South Carolina - as a friend of mine did in the 1990's. That's where Paisley usually went when he was visiting the US. Greenville is home to the FPC's flagship congregation which was led for many years by the late Alan Cairns. I visited there and heard him preach and I have visited other FPC's as well. Generally speaking, I enjoy their worship and their company.
Bob
Jones was also known for rejecting and condemning Billy Graham back
in the 1950's as a subversive
ecumenist and heretic. This was also a frequent refrain in Paisley's
preaching, all the more as Graham was often in Britain and certainly
cozied up to the Roman Catholic Church,
working with them on his
evangelistic crusades. At one point I had a cassette tape of a
Paisley sermon on Billy Graham. A friend and I used to listen to it
over and over again just to hear him thunder on about Graham, Cahal
Daly,
and others connected
to the Catholic hierarchy.
The
funny thing is this - I rather enjoy those folks when in many
respects I shouldn't. They are Fundamentalists which means I'm not
going to have a beer with them and additionally
they're not into the Reformed
tendency to make a big thing over cigars and alcohol - which I have
always found to be somewhat juvenile.
They are separatists and openly so. But again, I think the primary emphasis is in terms of rejecting the ecumenical movement but it also limits their interest in the affairs of this world. There's also a Fundamentalist eschewal of things like dancing, cards, and the like. Now again the Separatist label certainly didn't seem to translate with Paisley who was as much a political figure and activist than anything else. But among the American group I don't see a lot of political emphasis at all. This doesn't mean there aren't MAGA-types in their midst. I would expect that, but in terms of the pulpit, the focus is on doctrine and holiness. The worship is conservative and reminds me in a lot of ways of what some of the older Fundamentalist churches were like. My wife who grew up in a GARBC said (regarding an FPC service we attended) it reminded her of her church as it was back in the 1970's and 80's - just with better hymns, and they practice paedobaptism. But interestingly (not that I agree) they also openly permit craedobaptism. They make a point of not wanting to divide over the issue. I don't know if they have Baptistic ministers nor what they would do if a paedobaptist family wanted baptism for a newborn.
Anyway, if you're looking for high doctrine and a high view of the sacraments (on paper at least) coupled with separatism, then the North American FPC is an option. For my part I don't think they're very high on the sacraments at all but the fact that they retain the forms is certainly something.
There are other Fundamentalist Presbyterian groups such as the Bible Presbyterians who were initially part of Machen's group that would become the OPC. They broke over Dispensationalism and issues such as alcohol. Prohibition was huge at that time with many Confessionalists and even Mainline leaders embracing temperance and questioning the moral character of not only drinkers but someone (like Machen who was a teetotaller) who believed that drinking could not be Biblically prohibited.
So in the case of the Bible Presbyterians their pedigree is quite different and yet they too are a very small group that you don't hear a lot about. Francis Schaeffer was of their number - hardly a separatist either.
I gather that for the most part the FPC are Premillennialists but certainly not Dispensational. I recall Cairns (in Greenville) mocking Amillennialism but it was also clear he didn't really understand it.
If I could get past some of these issues, the Free Presbyterian group in North America is one I would consider but I'd have to be really desperate to entertain a return to Presbyterianism. More likely than not they would reject me first.
I just found it interesting that in some respects when the AI search parameters are tweaked the right way - they (the FPC) come up as an option representing (by a stretch) some of the doctrinal combinations I advocate. And the fact that I am familiar with them and have attended and enjoyed my time with them - that was an extra bonus so to speak.