January 2015

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2015.

January 6: “Who Is Billy Graham?”

6 January, 2015 in January 2015 by archivist | 2 comments

A Matter of Separation

dillardEA

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?—Amos 3:3, KJV.

One of the distinctive marks of the Bible Presbyterian denomination, which began in 1938, was the emphasis on separation. Not only were they properly careful to avoid anything that was sinful, but they understood Amos 3:3 to mean that they should not have anything to do with those who might claim the name of Christian, but whose life or doctrine did not match up with that claim.

The late Dr. George Hutchinson, in his wonderful book, The History behind the R.P.C.E.S., tells the story of how this emphasis on separation worked out in one particular instance:—

The testimony of separation continued to be an issue in the Bible Presbyterian Church. A representative, indeed classic, example is the case of the Bible Presbyterian Church of Charlotte, North Carolina. The case is complicated and only the barest outline of it can be presented here. Originally Southern Presbyterian, the church had become Bible Presbyterian under the leadership of the Rev. E.A. Dillard. [pictured at right]. Later when Dillard took a leave of absence to work with alcoholics [the famous Hebron Colony], the ministerial duties were taken up by the Rev. Alonzo Hitchcock, who eventually led part of the congregation out of the denomination to form an independent church. The crisis came when an obscure Youth for Christ evangelist by the name of Billy Frank Graham, whose father happened to be an elder in the Charlotte church, came to his home town to hold a campaign under the sponsorship of an inclusivist council of ministers. The session was divided on the issue of whether to cooperate with the campaign and tried to solve the problem by refusing to cooperate officially while leaving the matter of participation up to individuals, many of whom took an active part. At any rate, the church split over the issue, the Carolina Presbytery had difficulty handling the matter, and it eventually came before a pro re nata meeting of Synod.

[pro re nata = in the circumstances, or as the circumstance arises; thus, a pro re nata meeting is designed to deal with a specific situation that has arisen.] 

Lon Hitchcock maintained that having been through three Presbyterian Church splits, he was sick of the whole business. As opposed to emphasizing the major doctrines of the faith, Hitchcock’s view of the Bible Presbyterian Church of that time was that it was off on a doctrine of second degree separation that was involving it in all sorts of troubles. He agreed with the Harvey Cedars resolution on ecclesiastical separation, but censured E.A. Dillard and Carl McIntire for extreme applications of it, such as branding cooperation with the Billy Graham meetings as the “sin of sympathy.” Perhaps an evidence of how well the doctrine of separation was working, one young up and coming pastor in the Bible Presbyterian Church innocently (and quite honestly) asked “Who is Billy Graham?”

Hitchcock found no Biblical warrant for such second degree separation, stating “My Bible tells me to separate from modernists, but I have yet to see a place in Scripture where I am commanded to separate myself from a brother. . . . We believe in separation from apostates but we don‟t believe in separation from fellow Christians.‟ Ecclesiastical separation was being overemphasized at the expense of separation from the world. The Harvey Cedars resolution on worldly practices was fine, in Hitchcock’s estimation, but not really binding on anybody. Hitchcock was arguing for a renewed moral separation and a more balanced ecclesiastical separation. 

And who was that young up and coming pastor who didn’t yet know of Billy Graham? It was Francis Schaeffer!

Words to Live By:
The best way to avoid sin is to turn from it immediately and at first sight. Take Joseph as your example (Gen. 39:12). Flee immorality and every sin that would wage war against your soul. But at the same time, how will those who have gone astray be called back unless we are there to proclaim the truth to them? Jesus dined with sinners, but did not fall prey to their sin. We are to be in the world, but not of it.

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
For they sleep not, except they have done mischief;
and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.
For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.
But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.
—Proverbs 4:14-19, KJV

 

 

Tags: , , ,

January 5: How to Call a Pastor

5 January, 2015 in January 2015 by archivist | 2 comments

Back then, congregations really knew how to call a pastor.

The Rev. Charles Cummings was an Irishman by birth, and came to America in early manhood. He was licensed to preach by the Presbytery  of Hanover on April 18, 1767. He had received a good education, was capable in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and for a minister of his day, possessed a rather sizable and valuable library. In 1772 he accepted a call from the Sinking Spring and Ebbing Spring congregations, and served these congregations until his death in 1812. It is that call that draws our attention today, as a well-crafted plea for the ministerial services of a sought-after pastor. I dare say they don’t write them like this now.

 

Signed by 138 heads of families, January 5, 1772.

Worthy and Dear Sir—

We being in very destitute circumstances for want of the ordinances of Christ’s house statedly administered amongst us; many of us under very distressing spiritual languishments; and multitudes perishing in our sins for want of the bread of life broken among us; our Sabbaths too much profaned, or at least wasted in melancholy silence at home, our hearts and hands discouraged, and our spirits broken with our mournful condition, so that human language cannot sufficiently paint.

Having had the happiness, by the good Providence of God, of enjoying part of your labors to our abundant satisfaction, and being universally well satisfied by our experience of your ministerial abilities, piety, literature, prudence and peculiar agreeableness of your qualifications to us in particular as a gospel minister—we do, worthy and dear sir, from our very hearts, and with the most cordial affection and unanimity agree to call, invite and entreat you to undertake the office of a pastor among us, and the care and charge of our precious souls—and upon your accepting of this our call, we do promise that we will receive the word of God from your mouth, attend on your ministry, instruction and reproofs, in public and private, and submit to the discipline which Christ has appointed in his church, adminstered by you while regulated by the word of God and agreeable to our confession of faith and directory.

And that you may give yourself wholly up to the important work of the ministry, we hereby promise to pay unto you annually the sum of ninety pounds from the time of your accepting this our call; and that we shall behave ourselves towards you with all that dutiful respect and affection that becomes a people towards their minister, using all means within our power to render your life comfortable and happy. We entreat you, worthy and dear sir, to have compassion on us in this remote part of the world, and accept this our call and invitation to the pastoral charge of our precious and immortal souls, and we shall hold ourselves bound to pray.

[The above text can be found in William Foote’s, Sketches of Virginia, on page 115-116.]

Tags:

January 4: What Is the Chief End of Man?

4 January, 2015 in January 2015 by archivist | No comments

The last two years of this blog, we have tried to have a sermon on each Lord’s day, instead of some post about some Presbyterian person or event. It hasn’t always been easy to find material tied to a given date, and now with time demands more pressing this year, I thought it might be good in several ways to return to a set of lessons prepared many years ago by the Rev. Leonard Van Horn.

Rev. Van Horn was born in 1920, educated at Columbia Theological Seminary, and pastored churches in Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and New Mexico. He also served as a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. His work on the ruling elder remains in print, but his series on the Westminster Shorter Catechism has, regrettably, never been published. It was originally issued in the form of bulletin inserts, and the PCA Historical Center is pleased to have a complete set of these inserts. It is my plan to post one lesson each Sunday this year.

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?

A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.

Scripture References: I Cor. 10:31. Psalm 73:24-26. John 17:22,24.

Questions:
1.    What is the meaning of the word “end” in this question?
The word means an aim, a purpose, an intention. It will be noted that the word “end” is qualified by the word “chief”. Thus it is noted that man will have other purposes in this life but his primary purpose should be to glorify God. This is in keeping with the purpose for which man was made. It is when we are alienated from God that we have the wrong end or purpose in view.

2.    What does the word “glorify” mean in this question?
Calvin tells us that the “glory of God is when we know what He is.” In its Scriptural sense, it is struggling to set forth a divine thing. We glorify Him when we do not seek our own glory but seek Him first in all things.

3.    How can we glorify God?
Augustine said, “Thou hast created us for Thyself, O God, and our heart is restless until it finds repose in Thee.” We glorify God by believing in Him, by confessing Him before men, by praising Him, by defending His truth, by showing the fruits of the Spirit in our lives, by worshiping Him.

4.    What rule should we remember in regard to glorifying God?
We should remember that every Christian is called of God to a life of service. We glorify God by using the abilities He has given us for Him, though we should remember that our service should be from the heart and not simply as a duty.

5.    Why is the word “glorify” placed before “enjoy” in the answer?
It is placed first because you must glorify Him before you can enjoy Him. If enjoyment was placed first you would be in danger of supposing that God exists for man instead of men for God. If a person would stress the enjoying of God over the glorifying of God there would be danger, of simply an emotional type of religion. The Scripture says, “In Thy presence is fulness of joy. . . .” (Ps. 16:11). But joy from God comes from being in a right relationship with God, the relationship being set within the confines of Scripture.

6.    What is a good Scripture to memorize to remind us of the lesson found in Question No. 1?
“As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: …” (Ps. 42:1,2a). This reminds us of the correct relationship for the Christian, looking unto Him. It is there we find our ability to glorify Him and the resulting joy.

THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF MAN
It is a fact to be much regretted that the average Christian who gives allegiance to the Westminster Standards is a Christian that many times leaves out the living of these Standards in the daily pursuits of life. It is good to believe, it is good to have a creed in which to believe. But there is much harm that can result from believing in a creed and not living it day by day. From such an existence we arrive at a low tone of spiritual living and the professing believer becomes cold, formal, without spiritual power in his life.

We should always recognize that the first lesson to be learned from our catechism is that our primary concern is to be of service to the Sovereign God. Our Westminster Shorter Catechism does not start with the salvation of man. It does not start with God’s promises to us. It starts with placing us in the right relationship with our Sovereign God. James Benjamin Green tells us that the answer to the first question of the Catechism asserts two things: “The duty of man, ‘to glorify God.’ The destiny of man, ‘to enjoy Him.’ ”

It is to be regretted that though we have inherited the principles of our forefathers, in that their Creed is still our Creed, so many times we have failed to inherit the desire to practice their way of living. Many people will attempt to excuse themselves here by stating that we live in a different age, that the temptations and speed of life today divert us from spiritual things. But no matter what excuses we might give, the Catechism instructs us right at the outset that our duty is to glorify God, such is our chief purpose in life. All of us need to note the valid words of J. C. Ryle in regard to our Christian living: “Where is the self-denial, the redemption of time, the absence of luxury and self-indulgence, the unmistakable separation from earthly things, the manifest air of being always about our Master’s business, the singleness of eye, the high tone of conversation, the patience, the humility that marked so many of our forerunners . . . ?”

May God help each of us to stop right now, read again the first question and answer of our Catechism, and pray to God that in the days to come our primary concern might be that we will live to His glory. It is not difficult for us to know the characteristics of such a life. The fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5 are plain enough.

The Shield and Sword, Inc.
Vol. 1 No. 3  January, 1961
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Words to Live By:
Given our comments in yesterday’s Words to Live By, it seemed quite appropriate today to touch on this first question from the Catechism. Dr. Van Horn’s summary statements, above, are particularly apt.

Tags: , , ,

January 3: Miss Elva Foster

3 January, 2015 in January 2015 by archivist | No comments

Great Sacrifice in Difficult Circumstances

The Houston Mission was a work of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod (New Light), situated in one of the poorest areas of rural Kentucky. Staffing that ministry for most of its half-century of existence were two selfless women, one of whom is recounted here in a memorial which was spread upon the Minutes of the 152nd General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (1974).
I will invite you to come back to this post next week, after I am able to add some photos and perhaps some other information regarding the Houston Mission and Miss Foster, one of the elect ladies who oversaw that ministry.

Miss Elva Foster was called to be with the Lord on January 3, 1974. In 1907 she and Miss Susan J. Cunningham founded the Houston Mission in Breathitt County, Kentucky, which for many years served the people on Turkey Creek in spiritual, educational, and physical ways. Miss Foster taught school and later was matron of Ananth Home, the dormitory for the grade school children.

Most of her life was spent at this mission post with the exception of some time she was at home to care for her aged mother. She was the perfect lady in surroundings of crude and sometimes unfriendly character. She put much of her small salary back into the work and was the spiritual “mother” of the children of the mission. Even after her retirement when she went to live near relatives at Hebron, Nebraska, she was vitally interested in the work in Kentucky.

Her life reminds us of the verse in 2 Kings 4:8 where it says, “And it fell on a day, that Elisha passed to Shunem, where was a great woman;”

Tags: , , ,

January 2: Early 19th-century Ecumenical Efforts

2 January, 2015 in January 2015 by Wayne Sparkman | 2 comments

Try to Say Something Nice, and See What You Get

Through much of the later half of the 20th century, evangelical and conservative Presbyterians were almost constantly taken up with efforts at merger. By contrast, the 21st century has thus far seen an almost total absence of such efforts. In the closing of the 20th century, Dr. Robert Godfrey’s brief article, “A Reformed Dream,” seemed a last grasp at the goal of a more united Church.

mcleod01Reading in Samuel Brown Wylie’s Memoir of the Rev. Alexander McLeod last evening, I learned something. I did not previously know that in 1825 the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. resolved to confer through committee with the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This was a hand of fellowship extended to open up fraternal correspondence between the two denominations. Today the NAPARC denominations widely practice similar fraternal correspondence, but apparently it was a rare thing in that era. Still, what might we learn from this early effort at ecumenical unity?

When the Reformed Presbyterian Synod met later that same summer, they readily took up the proposal and adopted a favorable response, with the Rev. McLeod and Rev. John Gibson appointed to the committee to draft a reply. McLeod’s biographer comments on this effort:

This synodical tranaction might, indeed, be considered as a new era in our ecclesiastical concerns in this country. By the maxims of common sense, by our Covenant engagements, and by the obligations of the sacred oracles, we were bound to use all lawful endeavors to promote uniformity in the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the church of our Redeemer. That church we found divided into various sections, cherishing prejudices, too often indulging animosities subversive of the interests of true godliness; and, although members of the same body—the body of Christ—laboring under alienation of affection from each other yet all holding the same head, and all acknowledging one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. How shall all these be brought to that uniformity requisite for organic communion and demanded by the unity of the truth? Will it not be by the cultivation of social communion and friendly correspondence? Does not a repulsive distance, on the part of brethren, promote alienation of affection, foment jealousies, rivet prejudices, and cherish unfriendly feelings? Shall we stand aloof, and with sanctimonious air, like the proud Pharisee, say, “Stand by, we are holier than you!” No; God forbid! such was not the conduct of our reforming ancestors. With other sentiments, they formed and swore the Covenant in 1648, by the spirit of which we still hold ourselves bound. But this subject will again present itself, when the report of the committee shall come under discussion.

It need scarcely be remarked here, that Dr. McLeod cordially concurred in the project of the contemplated correspondence between the General Assembly and our Synod. The current year had not come to a close before he had attended to and finished the business assigned to the committee of which he was appointed chairman. Doctor McLeod, in a letter, dated New York, January 2, 1826, says, “we met on Friday, and finished the business unanimously, ere we separated.”

The articles drafted by the Reformed Presbyterian committee were in substance as follows:

1. Maintaining the proper unity of the visible church, and lamenting its divisions, we mutually covenant to employ our exertions patiently and prudently to bring our respective churches together, to a uniformity in doctrine, worship, and order, according to the Word of God.

2. In the meantime, we covenant that ministries, elders, and people shall treat each other with Christian respect, that the validity of ecclesiastical acts shall be reciprocally admitted; and each of the contracting parties may, without offence, examine persons, and review cases of discipline, on points distinctive to the respective denominations.

3. That the superior judicatories shall appoint two members, as commissioners, to attend the meetings of the other, not as members of that other, but with liberty to deliver opinions on any subject of interest, whether in discussion, or otherwise, but in no case to vote on a question.

4. That the General Assembly shall, on ratifying, appoint their delegates, to meet General Synod, so soon as they [the General Synod] shall have ratified this covenant.

Wylie relates how McLeod summarized his own view of the matter:

“Thus,” continues the Doctor, “so far as I perceive, we give nothing up; we forego no privilege we now have, and we gain a public admission of truth in a respectable connection with a sister church, and a covenant with them for future reform, or, at least, for the use of lawful means to lead thereto. . . . I hope little more will be said upon this subject, until it rises up to view in the [PCUSA] Assembly.

“Yours sincerely,
“A. McL.”

And then Wylie adds the sad summary put upon the matter by Reformed Presbyterians in general:

The good Doctor’s hopes in this case were disappointed. It was spoken against, written against, decried from pulpit, press, and by private denunciation, as a violation of our covenants, long before it rose to view in the General Assembly. Every prejudice that could be excited was enlisted against it, and the tocsin [i.e., an alarm bell or signal] of incipient apostasy was rung over the length and breadth of the land.

Words to Live By:
It is interesting to compare Dr. McLeod’s earlier 1802 stand against slavery, a resolve which led his entire denomination to that same conviction, often at great cost. But nearly 25 years later, the seemingly simple effort to open up fraternal correspondence between denominations met with stiff opposition. How very curious. And sad. Perhaps the seeds of the 1833 RP split began in some respect with that widespread rejection in 1826.

“So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.”—Romans 14:19, ESV.

“But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.”—1 Corinthians 12:24-26, NASB.

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”—Ephesians 4:3-6, KJV

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »