December 3, 1870, and You Are There.

A nice review in a newspaper of the time, covering an ordination in a Presbyterian church, not quite one hundred fifty years ago. Things haven’t changed much, though apparently on this occasion the Rev. Witherspoon brought both the charge to the pastor and the charge to the congregation. Today we would typically have one elder (usually a teaching elder) bring the charge to the pastor, and another elder (teaching or ruling) bring the charge to the congregation.

The Petersburg Index, Petersburg, Virginia, December 3, 1870

INSTALLATION OF REV RICHARD MCILWAINE

The installation of this talented young minister, (so well known in Petersburg) as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, took place on Thursday night and was witnessed by a large congregation. The Virginian says of the ceremony.

The sermon was preached by Rev. W. W. Houston, of Salem, on the text “One Faith;” It’s object being to show that amid all the differences of Christian sects there is a oneness of faith.  This was illustrated by the fact that all Christians agree in that faith that has but one object, one fruit or result, and one issue.  It was a very solemn appeal and was listened to with close attention.

After sermon Mr. Houston propounded the questions that are required by the Form of Government, which being answered in the affirmative, the relation was declared as regularly instituted.

After this, Rev. Dr. [Thomas Dwight] Witherspoon delivered a most solemn charge to the Pastor, urging him to appreciate his work-to preach Christ – to be faithful to all his charge, and to cultivate spirituality in all his efforts.

After this, the Dr. proceeded to charge the people, first to love their pastor, then to care for his spiritual welfare, then to pray for him, and uphold him in every possible way as co-laborers in the great work of the ministry.  This charge was closed with an allusion to his visit here at the beginning of the war, when so many that received him so cordially, are now missed from the church on earth.  His allusion to these things melted the church to tears.

The whole services were then closed with prayer and the singing of a hymn, when many of the church came forward and gave a cordial welcome to their new pastor.

Words to Live By:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17, ESV)

Gordon Clark’s Daddy

In today’s post, we present a brief article by the Rev, David S. Clark, a Presbyterian pastor and the father of Gordon Haddon Clark, the well-known Presbyterian philosopher.

BARTHIAN FOG
by the Rev. David S. Clark, D.D.
[The Presbyterian 107.48 (2 December 1937): 11.]

THE PRESBYTERIAN has been honored with three splendid articles by Dr. John W. Bowman, on Barthianism. The Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., is fortunate in having Dr. Bowman, and the Presbyterian Church, U.S., is fortunate in having Rev. Holmes Rolston as experts on Barthianism. We do not know Dr. Bowman, but we assign him a place in the galaxy of scholars.

The Achilles heel of Barthian Theology is his doctrine of Scripture, especially of Inspiration. The formation of the written word is a “paradox” in Barthian language. A paradox is a contradiction. The written word has a human and a divine element, which, according to Barth, are in contradiction. The human letter or writing is the human element, and as it is wholly human, and contradicts the divine, it is imperfect, and therefore an infallible word is impossible.

Barth is willing to admit that the influx of the divine revelation to the prophet’s mind is of God, and is infallible. But the efflux, resulting in the writing of the Word, is only human and faulty. All this is due to an inadequate view of Inspiration, and a neglect of the testimony of the Scriptures, which are our only source of information.

One error of Barth in this is an inheritance from the philosophy of Hegel. We observed in studying Hegel’s philosophy that he called a difference a contradiction. A human element and a divine element are different, but not a contradiction. If you are a semi-Pantheist, you will identify the human and divine. If you are a normal Theist, you will recognize an almighty immanence, and a supernatural providence, that can guarantee an infallible efflux and produce an infallible Word.

Barth’s conception of the Word of God is subjected to a tenuous refinement like Kant’s “Ding an sich,” till it is difficult to get one’s fingers on it. The written word is not the word of God, according to Barth. The spoken word is not the word. It is something in and through and behind all this.

Here is the German tendency to go back of the thing to the thing behind the thing, which always results in vagueness. A good example is the recent Form Criticism. It all has an unsettling tendency.

Somewhat more confusing is Barth’s Dialectic, which he inherited from Hegel, who borrowed it from Fichte. It is called “logic”; but in our estimation it is not logic at all. When a conclusion necessarily results from the combination of major and minor premises, we call that logic. But the German scheme of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, is to our mind an invalid process, because there is no necessary connection in thought between the synthesis and the other terms. But perhaps we may say casually that a German would not be indigenous without some idiosyncrasy. The tendency to mere speculation and vagueness is confusing to an American who looks for conciseness and terse expression. Theology as a whole is capable of simple and lucid statement. Job said : “Oh, that my adversary had written a book!” But we may say : “Oh, that the German critics would talk United States!”

Barth deserves praise for exalting the sovereignty and authority of God ; but his doctrine of Scripture is fatal to any sound theology.

Philadelphia, Pa.