The Rev. Samuel G. Craig, founder of Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, was one of those conservatives who stayed in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., continuing to fight for an orthodox Christian faith.  Dr. Clarence E.N. Macartney, whom Craig mentions toward the end of this editorial, was another of those who stayed to continue the difficult fight.  Dr. Craig wrote this editorial not many months after the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [initially named The Presbyterian Church of America].  The editorial is his explanation of why he stayed.  It may also offer some insight into the thinking of those who, to this day, continue to stay to fight for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and against modernism and unbelief.  By God’s grace, He has put us in other places, but these brothers and sisters do deserve our prayers and encouragement.

THE ALLEGED APOSTASY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A.
[excerpted from Christianity Today 7.6 (October 1936): 1-2.]

APOLOGISTS for the “Presbyterian Church of America” justify its formation on the ground that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has become apostate. It would even seem that most of their members hold that all the Presbyterian churches of America that existed prior to June 11, 1936, have become Presbyterian churches in name only, as otherwise it is natural to assume, especially in view of their small number, that they would have sought membership in one of the already existing Presbyterian Churches. Be that as it may, they unblushingly affirm that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is hopelessly corrupt and that it is a sin to remain a member of said Church.

The above charge seems so incredible on its face as to call for no consideration. However, in view of the fact that it is being persistently made by the organizers and promoters of the newly organized “Presbyterian Church of America,” it may not be out of place to make brief reference to it.

It should not be overlooked, in the first place, that it is as impossible to indict a whole Church as it is to indict a whole nation (Burke). Even if we should grant the contention that the existing leadership of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is apostate—we think even that a gross exaggeration—it would by no means follow that the Church as a whole with its nearly ten thousand ministers, some fifty thousand elders and approximately two million members is apostate. The charge is so absurd that it is passing strange that persons, otherwise seemingly sane and sober, should give it any credence.

It should be noted, in the next place, that this charge is based largely if not exclusively on the judicial decisions of the last Assembly. Certainly previous to the judicial decisions of the last Assembly the charge could not well be made by those now members of the “Presbyterian Church of America” as practically all of them were at that time members of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. It is important to point out, therefore, that even if it were true that the last Assembly sitting as a court handed down decisions that involved placing the word of man above the Word of God and subordinating Christ himself to a human authority that would not mean that the Presbyterian Church had become officially apostate. To judge thus is grossly to overestimate the significance that attaches to judicial decisions according to Presbyterian law. The doctrine of stare decisis is not a part of the law of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This means that while decisions by a General Assembly, sitting as a court, are final as far as the cases before it are concerned yet that these decisions do not establish binding precedents. It is impossible, therefore, for the Presbyterian Church to become apostate through the actions of a single Assembly Avithout the concurrence of the presbyteries. No doubt if a succession of Assemblies, with the approval of the Church at large, should take actions that in effect acknowledged a king other than Christ and placed the stamp of its approval on “another gospel” that would, for all practical purposes, have the same effect as if this had been done by an Assembly with the concurrence of the presbyteries. But as yet at least that has not happened.

It should be noted further that such plausibility as attaches to the allegation that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. apostasized through the actions of the last Assembly is derived for the most part from, the assumption that said Assembly placed the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole. Otherwise the last Assembly pronounced no judgment on that Deliverance in as far as it affirmed that support of the Boards of the Church is a matter of compulsion not of free will, that an implicit faith in the deliverances of the General Assembly is obligatory on members of the Presbyterian Church, and that a church or an individual who fails to give to the support of the Boards of the Church “is in exactly the same position with reference to the Constitution of the Church as a church or an individual that would refuse to take part in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper”—to mention some of the representations in that Deliverance most generally relied upon to support the alleged apostasy of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. In our opinion the assumption, just alluded to, is not well-grounded. It rests on the language employed by the Assembly in Judicial case No. 2 (McIntire case) in which it was stated that “The Deliverance of 1934 is an executive order of the General Assembly, issued with reference to a particular situation that had arisen in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., directed to a limited number of persons, and to the presbyteries concerned, for the purpose of securing definite action relating to those persons.” This language was used in connection with the court’s discussion of the question whether the appellant was guilty of an offense because of his refusal to obey the direction of the 1934 Assembly requiring him to resign from the Independent Board. It would seem, therefore, that when the court employed this language, seeing that the Deliverance as a whole was directed to the Church at large not merely to members of the Independent Board and the presbyteries to which they belonged, that it meant to set its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance only in as far as it was an executive order. This is confirmed by the fact that the Deliverance as a whole is not of the nature of an executive order and so not susceptible of such description. That the court did not mean to set its judicial approval on the Deliverance as a whole would seem to be indicated, moreover, by the fact that, by implication, it repudiated the Deliverance—in part at least—when it affirmed that membership in an independent agency or board “is not in itself cause for disciplinary action.” For if it is not an offense to belong to and support an independent board or agency it cannot be that it is the “definite obligation and a sacred duty” of all those affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to support its boards and agencies “to the utmost” or to the “full measure” of their ability.

As pointed out in previous issues, the considerations just adduced lead us to believe that in the passage relied upon to prove that the last Assembly set the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole the word “is” was used in the sense of “contains.” But let it not be forgotten that even if the assumption we have been discussing is well-grounded, i.e. even if the last Assembly placed the seal of its judicial approval on the 1934 Deliverance as a whole, it would not follow, in view of what we said above about the significance of judicial decisions according to Presbyterian law, that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. became apostate through the actions of the last Assembly. That is why we have spoken of this assumption as bearing on the plausibility rather than on the validity of the alleged apostasy of said Church. If on the other hand we are right in thinking that the last Assembly expressly upheld the 1934 Deliverance only in as far as it was an executive order addressed to a limited number of individuals and presbyteries, then obviously its judicial decisions, re its Independent Board members, contain little or nothing to even suggest apostasy. These decisions may leave much to be desired but interpreted apart from the 1934 Deliverance as a whole they do little more than affirm that membership in an organization like the Independent Board is punishable with suspension because such an organization contravenes express provisions of the Constitution, particularly Chapter XXIII of the Form of Government. If such is not the case certain members of the Independent Board have been treated exceedingly unjustly but that would offer no warrant for asserting that the Presbyterian Church has apostasized. The Constitution being what it is, it is simply untrue to say that the Independent Board members were prosecuted merely because they chose to obey God rather than men.

Because we maintain that it is to bear false witness against the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to affirm that it is apostate, let it not be supposed that we are satisfied with said Church as it is. Far from it. Modernism, indifferentism and bureaucracy are rampant in its councils and boards and must needs be firmly opposed by all those who value their Presbyterian heritage. Reform is imperatively needed and every true Presbyterian should gird himself for the task. Let it not be said that everything possible to reform the Church has been done and the task been found to be an impossible one. Such is not the case.

The ill-advised attempt represented by the Independent Board and the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union commanded the support of only a few conservatives and was doomed to failure from the start. As yet no intelligently conceived or wisely directed plan of reformation has been devised and its execution attempted. It is to be hoped that at the joint-meeting of the Presbyterian League of Faith and the Ruling Elders’ Association, announced for this autumn, something worth while may be accomplished along this line. It is not a task that can be accomplished in a day. It is a task that will require years, possibly decades, and we should not be discouraged if progress be slow. But it is a task, we believe, that can be avoided only at the cost of loyalty to the great Head of the Church. Dr. Macartney is certainly right when he says that “the two watchwords for this hour are the two utterances so familiar to all Americans — one by the dying James Lawrence, ‘Don’t give up the ship’, and the other by John Paul Jones, ‘I have just commenced to fight’.”

In 1926, J. Gresham Machen received nomination to the chair of apologetics and ethics from the Board of Directors at the Princeton Theological Seminary.  In the normal course of things, this nomination would have been routinely approved by the General Assembly as it met later that same year.  Machen, however, had previously opposed in 1920 the Philadelphia Plan for merging nineteen Presbyterian denominations into a single federated body.  He had published two books, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (1920) and Christianity and Liberalism (1923), both of which presented strong arguments against modernism and unbelief.  In short, Machen had become a very public voice raised against modernism, and so he had enemies.  A campaign of opposition was raised against his nomination and the matter remained unresolved up until the reorganization of Princeton Seminary and the departure of Dr. Machen and other faithful professors.

Today’s post is especially interesting for two reasons.  First, it is, I think, the earliest example in print of someone describing J. Gresham Machen in terms of Bunyan’s famous character from Pilgrim’s Progress, Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.  Ned Stonehouse, in his Biographical Memoir of J. Gresham Machen, popularized this description, but apparently Rev. Lipscomb was perhaps the first to draw the association. Second, the manner in which Machen is described by comparison with other outstanding men of his era provides some unique insights into his character, though our modern ignorance of the men referenced saps the full force of the comparisons.

An Appreciation of Dr. J. Gresham Machen
By Rev. T.H. Lipscomb, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
[excerpted from THE PRESBYTERIAN 96.36 (9 September 1926): 9, 18.]

After five days of listening to sermons and addresses by Dr. J. Gresham Machen, we heartily endorse the statement in THE PRESBYTERIAN of June 10, that he is unsurpassed in his ability to impart knowledge to others, and that he is or should be one of the chief glories not only of Princeton Theological Seminary, but of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

Dr. Machen has been lecturing before a Methodist “Seashore Divinity School” at Biloxi, Mississippi, on “What is Christianity?” and preaching twice on Sabbath also.  We had expected to find him a thorough scholar and a thorough Christian, with what super-additions of genius and grace we know not.  To our delight and unceasing joy we find him endowed with an intellectual clarity and felicity of expression which causes to flow forth into the minds of even unlearned hearers a sparkling stream of pure truth, quickening and convincing out of a mass of detailed knowledge from which most scholars bring forth only negations or inconclusive theories.  His mental idiosyncrasy in this regard is quite marked—hitting the nail on the head, causing the sparks to fly ; and in the light of vindicated truth driving error from the field.  We recall, as we think of him, Bunyan’s Mr. Valiant for Truth, and we would that the ten thousand silver trumpets might sound to do him honor—they will some day if not now, as he, too, crosses over into the Celestial City.  Then woe to those who have said, “Let not such light of truth which also refutes and condemns error shine among us.  We must be tolerant and considerate of error nowadays.”  A graduate of a Northern theological seminary myself (Drew ’03), and having heard many of the ablest scholars of Europe and America, we affirm frankly and sincerely that we now of no man in any church so eminently qualified to fill a chair of “Apologetics and Christian Ethics,” provided you want that chair filled, the Christian faith really defended and Christian ethics elucidated and lived.  For, let me add that Dr. Machen is an humble saint, as well as a rare scholar, not a “saint of the world,” who stands for nothing and against nothing, but a saint of God who loves truth, seeks truth, finds truth, and upholds truth against all adversaries, however mightily ; in this respect like Paul, Peter and John, and following our Lord Jesus Christ, who “to this end was born” “to bear witness to the truth.”  You rightly say in an editorial, “The toleration of error within the churches means the persecution of truth.”

But we have seen Dr. Machen in social life, sharing with him the hospitality of a Southern home ; we have been with him on a pleasure trip to Ship Island, and we must confess that we have silently looked for those terrible “tempermental idiosyncrasies” which the General Assembly branded him with as questioning his fitness for a chair in the seminary which he has served for twenty years, and which his name to-day and the name of R.D. Wilson now make illustrious among believers the world around.  We say frankly the “tempermental idiosyncrasies” do not exist in any other sense or degree than they exist in every man.  We have had two other prominent believers at Biloxi : one a Southern Methodist Bishop of renown, the other the dean of one of our theological seminaries.  They each have “idiosyncrasies” in speech, in gesture, in manner, in personality fully as pronounced as any that Dr. Machen may possess.  Dr. Machen has something of the crisp, almost snappy vocalization of S. Parkes Cadman ; he has something of the serious dignity of Marcus Dods ; he has at times, when a truth is shining radiantly in his mind and he is sending it home, something of the fire of Olin A. Curtis.  He has something of the spiritual elevation of W.L. Watkinson.  We scarcely think it defensible, however, to say that unique qualities of personality disqualify a man for a position.  There have been German theologians of highest renown, so eccentric as to go to a class room in a night gown, or stand on a corner reading while car after car passed, until the students came, found their professor, and took him to his desk.  The story is told of a prominent American Church historian that in arranging passage for Europe he forgot to include one of his own children and hurried back to the city to correct his mistake.  Yet for over twenty years he has continued in a professorship for which he is eminently qualified.  We have not heard that Dr. Machen has been accused of such eccentricities.

Dr. Machen we have found to be indeed, meeting him for the first time, a genial, cultured, Christian gentleman ; modest and almost diffident by nature, and quite considerate of his opponent in all the obligations of Christian courtesy and fairness.  In social conversation he is quite free and at perfect ease.  I saw him sit for an hour on shipboard, surrounded by young ministers, answering kindly and well a running fire of questions to the satisfaction of all.

We cannot understand the action of your General Assembly.  If it ultimately “repudiates” J. Gresham Machen, we can only interpret the shout in the camp of the Modernists already heard as the shout of the Philistines, in anticipation of the defeat of the armies of the living God.  What are orthodox words when deed belie them?

West Point, Mississippi.

From a short series that we ran some years ago, this particular post is timely:

“The great thing in the Church is CHRIST, the blood of Christ, the Spirit of Christ, the presence of Christ among us. The great thing is Christ, but there is also advantage in a certain government of the Church of Christ. I am a Presbyterian, not only of situation, but of conviction and choice. Our Presbyterian way is the good middle way between Episcopacy on the one side, and Congregationalism on the other. We combine the two great principles that must be maintained in the Church—Order and Liberty; the order of government, and the liberty of the people.”—Merle d’ Aubigne.

TEN REASONS FOR BEING A PRESBYTERIAN.

EIGHTH REASON.

8. I am a Presbyterian—because I love and pray for unity; not uniformity at the expense of truth, but unity based on truth and charity. Our Presbyterian Church has its congregations knit together in mutual dependence and sympathy, as one body in the unity of the Spirit, having one Lord and Head, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. And all are united under one superintendence and government, holding the same standards, and maintaining the same principles, the strong helping and bearing the burden of the weak, the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel. We thus enjoy a visible, as well as a spiritual unity, according to the scriptural idea of the Church, the body of Christ.—(Ephesians iv. 8–16.)

Obviously the important thing here is not the date of the article, but the message of how a godly home bears a great blessing for generations to come. May we all seek to live to glorify our Lord with our lives, in all that we do and say.

[excerpted from THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, Vol. XXXI, No. 23 (5 June 1852):  89, column 5.]

THE FAMILY OF PRESIDENT EDWARDS.

It was an unspeakable privilege in the view of the late President [Jonathan] Edwards, that when surrounded by a young and growing family, and when his duty to his people, especially in seasons of revival, necessarily occupied his whole attention, he could safely commit his children to the wisdom and piety, the love and faithfulness of their mother [Sarah Pierpont Edwards]. Her views of the responsibility of parents were large and comprehensive.

“She thought that, as a parent, she had great and important duties to do toward her children before they were capable of government and instruction. For them she constantly and earnestly prayed, and bore them on her heart before God, in all her secret and most solemn addresses to him; and that, even before they were born. The prospect of her becoming a mother of a rational, immortal creature, which came into existence in an undone and infinitely dreadful state, was sufficient to lead her to bow before God daily for His blessing on it; even redemption and eternal life by Jesus Christ. So that, through all the pain, labor, and sorrow which attended her being the mother of children, she was in travail for them that they should be born of God.

She regularly prayed with her children, from a very early period, and, as there is the best reason to believe, with great earnestness and importunity. Being thoroughly sensible that, in many respects, the chief care of forming children by government and instruction, naturally lies on mothers, as they are most with their children at an age when they commonly receive impressions that are permanent, and have great influence in forming the character for life, she was very careful to do her part in this important business. When she foresaw or met with any special difficulty in this matter, she was wont to apply to her husband for advice and assistance; and on such occasions they would both attend to it, as a matter of the utmost importance. She had an excellent way of governing her children; she knew how to make them regard and obey her cheerfully, without loud, angry words, much less heavy blows.

She seldom punished them; and in speaking to them, used gentle and pleasant words. If any correction was necessary, she did not administer it in a passion; and when she had occasion to reprove and rebuke, she would do it in a few words, without warmth and noise, and with all calmness  and gentleness of mind. In her directions and reproofs in matters of importance, she would address herself to the reason of her children, that they might not only know her inclination and will, but at the same time be convinced of the reasonableness of it.

She had need to speak but once; she was cheerfully obeyed; murmuring and answering again were not known among them. In their manners they were uncommonly respectful to their parents. When their parents came into the room, they all rose instinctively from their seats, and never resumed them until their parents were seated; and when either parent was speaking, no matter with whom they had been conversing, they were all immediately silent and attentive. The kind and gentle treatment they received from their mother, while she strictly and punctiliously maintained her parental authority, seemed naturally to beget and promote a filial respect and affection, and to lead them to a mild, tender treatment of each other. Quarreling and contention, which too frequently take place among children, were in her family wholly unknown.

She carefully observed the first appearance of resentment and ill-will in her young children, toward any person whatever, and did not connive at it, as many who have the care of children do, but was careful to show her displeasure, and suppress it to the utmost; yet not by angry, wrathful words, which often provoke children to wrath, and stir up their irascible passions, rather than abate them.

Her system of discipline was begun at a very early age, and it was her rule to resist the first, as well as every subsequent exhibition of temper or disobedience in the child, however young, until its will was brought into submission to the will of its parents; wisely reflecting, that until a child will obey its parents, he can never be brought to obey God.

[emphasis added.]