June 2015

You are currently browsing the archive for the June 2015 category.

The Sunbeam
This author was worshiping recently at the Army War College Memorial Protestant Chapel when the Army chaplain announced that we were going to sing “Beneath the Cross of Jesus.” I couldn’t help but mention to the Army veteran sitting next to me in the pew that this gospel song was written by a Scottish Presbyterian lass! Its familiar words brought me back to the history of this hymn writer.
Elizabeth Cecelia Douglas Clephane was born on June 18, 1830, the third child of Andrew Clephane, a law enforcement official in Fife, Scotland. She went on to live most of her life in Melrose, Scotland, about 30 miles southeast of Edinburgh.  Her parents died while she was young. She herself was a sickly and frail child, but known in the community as a young woman full of good works, giving what extra money she earned to give to those of lesser blessings in life. For that reason, she was known as “the Sunbeam” in the Scottish community.
Elizabeth also wrote poetry, and many of her poems were put to music. Not long after her early death, on February 19, 1869, eight of her poems were published in a Scottish Presbyterian magazine called “Family Treasury.” The editor of that magazine, a Rev. W. Arnot said of her work that “her hymns express experiences, hope, and the longings of a young Christian. Further, he said, they seem to be footprints printed on the sands of Time, where these sands touch the ocean of Eternity.”
Of her poems put to music, two continue to be sung today and are found in the New Trinity Hymnal. Number 187 is the five stanza hymn “There were Ninety and Nine that safely lay in the shelter of the fold.”  This story poem is taken from the Luke 15:7 text in Scripture.
Its music is a story in itself. Ira Sankey was in charge of the music for evangelist Dwight Moody. On an evangelistic tour through the British Isles, Sankey had come across just the words of the poem by Elizabeth Clephane. Reading them aloud to Moody, he saw that the evangelist was busy reading a letter and not showing any interest in the words of the poem. The next night, Moody surprised Sankey by telling the latter to play the poem and sing it as well. Mind you, all Ira Sankey had was the words of the poem, no musical notes at all. So sitting down at the piano or organ, Sankey put his hands on the keys, and began to play and sing! And that, as they say, is the rest of the story.
The second hymn by Elizabeth Clephane in our Trinity Hymnal appears on page 251, “Beneath the Cross of Jesus.” Thinking of the author as a weak and frail Christian woman, in poor health all of her short life, we can appreciate her words more fully where she wrote, in the third verse, “content to let the world go by, to know no gain nor loss; my sinful self my only shame, my glory all the cross.”
Words to Live By:
How many times have we sung these two hymns and never even thought of the author or bothered to know anything of her circumstances? But with a knowledge of her now, let us sing them again with full appreciation of their thoughts and words. Like Elizabeth Clephane, we can sing of “two wonders I confess, the wonders of redeeming love and my unworthiness.”

Tags: , , ,

A Presbyterian Soldier In Service to  His Country

In these posts on Presbyterian History, Wayne Sparkman and I have written several posts on the remarkable Junkin family of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. They were Covenanters, and later members of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. When a church of the latter denomination was not found where they lived, they joined the closest Presbyterian church of any stripe.  Stalwart patriots in peace time and war time, two Junkins fought in the Revolutionary War as well as in the War of 1812.

Now we come to the third generation of patriotic Junkins who fought in the Civil War, on both the Union and Confederate sides. Two Junkin brothers on the Union side were killed, one at Fredericksburg, Virginia in 1862 and another at Spotsylvania, Virginia in 1864. Our post today deals with Bingham Findley Junkin, who enlisted in Mercer County, Pennsylvania on February 27, 1864. He entered as a private in a company of fellow Covenanters and Presbyterians known as the One Hundredth Pennsylvania “Roundheads” Regiment. Even though he only fought in the closing battles of the war, he wrote a remarkable diary, which reveals the kind of  Christian Presbyterian he was.

First, it was obvious that Bingham Findlay Junkin believed that the Bible was God’s Word, and occupied his waking hours in study, reading, and meditation. On Sunday, March 13, 1864, Bingham wrote, “. . . I spent the day as much as circumstances would permit in reading my Bible and thinking upon its many precious promises.” On another Sabbath, April 3, he wrote, “I make it a rule to read a portion of scripture every day, although I cannot have any set time; have to be guided by circumstances in a great measure, but always try if possible to read a chapter just before going to sleep.” It is clear that the Bible was the constant companion of this Civil War soldier and not just something to put into his pocket as a mere good luck charm.

The Sabbath was God’s time to worship by attending joint services, to listen to the Word of God as proclaimed by the Army chaplains, and to pray with others of like precious faith. Towards that end, it is clear that Bingham Junkin wanted the Sabbath to be observed rightly, not filling it with activities which took away from this religious day. On more than one occasion, such as April 10, 1864, Junkin wrote “We had dress parade at five o’clock, 30 minutes, something I think is entirely out of place, to thus desecrate the Sabbath.” Further, “I have and will continue to speak against (Sabbath parades), for I think it is very wrong to ask God’s blessing on our army and then willfully disobey him is a mockery. Can we expect a blessing?” On another Sabbath, April 17th, he wrote, “No dress parade today. This is as it should be, there is not the least shadow of excuse for our armies parading on the Sabbath, when lying in camp.” He worshiped the God of his fathers and mentioned that several times, appreciating the Word preached and the prayer meetings which were held.

Bingham Junkin had a firm grasp of God’s sovereignty. On Sunday, April 3, 1864, the Union soldier wrote an entry which acknowledged that “God rules; and that he doeth all things well. Oh how comforting the thought that we have such a God to go to, and make all our wants known unto him.” Another entry on March 25th reads, “Oh, how much grace the Christian soldier needs and how comforting the thought that God reigns everywhere.”

He was forever praising and acknowledging the providence of God, in granting him many examples of Fatherly care over him. On March 27, after hearing two sermons from two chaplains, he wrote, “Oh, how pleasant when separated from the endearment of home to enjoy such privileges. How good God is to provide for the instruction and comfort of his people under every circumstances.” On March 29, he penned, “How good in the Lord to all those that put their trust in him.  He is ever nigh to them that call upon him.” Or April 3, “Oh how comforting the thought that we have such a God to go to; and make all our wants known unto him.” His diary entry for May 6th has a sentence which indicates he was in actual battle when he wrote “through the goodness of God I was spared for which I feel thankful.” And again, May 15, “The Lord has been very gracious to me in preserving my health and sparing my life.” Or May 25, he “shot at and was shot at by the Rebs but by the infinite mercy of God my life was spared, altho the bullets frequently came near me, but in God alone is our help to be found.” On June 3 are found the words “The Lord alone can protect and preserve life and may he enable us all to be thankful for his care over us.”

It was at Petersburg on this day, June 17, that God allowed Bingham Junkin to be wounded in the right thigh, which shattered his hip bone. After medical care at home and in hospitals, he returned to the front and was discharged from there when Lee surrendered on July 8, 1865.

He returned to his wife, Mary Duff and his four children. In the rest of his life, he would father another four children, though one son would die three years after his birth.   Bingham Junkin himself died on May 15, 1911 at age 78.

Words to Live By:
It is a remarkable diary which can be found on the Web and available for you to read. [Click here.]. It speaks of a patriotic Covenanter who saw God’s hand in peace time and in war time. In return, Bingham Findlay Junkin blessed the God of his fathers, thus by his example giving all of our readers the exhortation to acknowledge God’s hand in everything. As Solomon put it in Proverbs 3:5, 6 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.” (NASB)

Tags: , , ,

schaeffer02Truth is rooted in nothing less than the truth that God exists.

The following written address was delivered by Dr. Francis Schaeffer at the 10th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America which met in Grand Rapids, Michigan on June 16, 1982. This message continues to be something which needs to be periodically re-read and pondered.

 

 

It is a profound privilege to be asked to speak today, as this day we are one church.

It is a day of rejoicing. It must primarily be that. And yet it is also a sober day before the face of our dear Lord—a sober day, for while this is now in one way an accomplished fact, in another way it is only a beginning. Like birth itself—birth is something completed—the human being nine months old emerges into the external world. But then, though this is a completed thing, what then matters is what is done with life. There is a life to be lived.

For us, what matters now, with the rejoicing is the looking to our Lord for the common life which we now have together, to be lived and to be lived well in the light of the infinite-personal God’s existence, in the light of His revelation in the Scripture, in the light of the teaching and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and in the light of the coming complete restoration of all things.

We must realize that our being one will take looking to the Lord for help. There will be problems of coordination which must be worked out with patience, with being servants to each other. This will not happen automatically. It will take conscious thought, prayer, and a realistic love not to let our egotisms spoil that which God has given us. I would just say to you there are going to be months, there are going to be times, that you are consciously going to have to realize that there are things that have be worked out in love, and it is imperative that as these things are worked out that the things of personal egotism and personal preference which is not principle would not spoil that which God has given us.

We have much to help us: The Lord Himself, and our common heritage. There are differences in our heritage between the Northern and the Southern Presbyterian Churches. And there are divergencies in our histories since we have left those churches. But our common heritage is much greater than the differences.

Our common heritage is rooted in the eternal final objective reality, the infinite-personal Creator, the triune God Himself. Our common heritage is rooted in the unity of all those who have believed God from the Fall onward. Our common heritage is rooted in the New Testament Church from Pentecost onward. Our common heritage is rooted in the Reformation when God’s people threw off the encrustations of the medieval church and returned to authority resting in Scripture only, and salvation resting only in Christ’s finished Substitutionary work in history on the cross. All these things are our common heritage which far outshadow the differences. But more, our common heritage is rooted back to Geneva and to Scotland with our Presbyterian forefathers, and then again closer to us in this moment of history. Our common heritage is rooted in that we take seriously the Bible’s command concerning the purity of the visible church. This is our common heritage or we would not exist as individual churches and now as one church. And, thus, when the denominations to which we have belonged passed the point of not return we—with tears but with loyalty to our Lord—practiced truth and we stepped out from the denominations when there was no return in these denominations after we had patiently tried.

We have no illusions that in this fallen world and with our own finiteness and our own individual sin that we will have a perfect church but we stepped out looking to our Lord to help us have a true church. It will not be perfect, but we believe indeed we have a call to a true church—with a proper preaching of the Word, unmixed with liberalism; the proper sharing of the sacraments, being able to guard the table not having people sitting there who deny the great things of the living God, the Scriptures, and the living Christ; and also the proper administration to discipline in both doctrine and life.

Yes, we do have differences of background but the common heritage eminently overshadows the differences.

As we look ahead I would suggest certain things should be in our thoughts as individuals and as a particular church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Forgive me if I stress what I have stressed before in talks, articles and books. However, we will not know who we are or what lies ahead as a privilege and a duty unless we remember our Presbyterian recent past history. As we cannot understand our young people and the culture which surrounds us unless we understand the 60’s, so we cannot understand the present religious climate in the United States unless we understand the 1930’s. Prior to the 1930’s the Bible believing Christians had stood together as liberalism came in to steal the churches. Then at different speeds the liberals achieved their theft of the various denominations with their power centers of the seminaries and their bureaucracies. At that point and onward the true Christians instead of standing together as had been the case previously divided into two groups: Those who held to a principle of the purity of the visible church; and those who accepted and acted upon the concept of a pluralistic church. There’s a line just like that. It’s a line that began back there in the 30’s, has continued and marks the religious life of the United States excruciatingly in our own day—those who hold to the principle of the purity of the visible church and those who accept the concept of the pluralistic church.

As you know, I have stressed over and over again the weakness of what became known as “the separated movement.” It is good to remind ourselves again what God’s calling to us is once we have become Christians. Our calling once we have become Christians is to exhibit the existence of God and to exhibit His character, individually and collectively. God is holy and God is love, and our calling is simultaneously to show forth holiness and love in every aspect of life—parent and child, husband and wife, church, state, everything else—an exhibition of the character of God showing forth his holiness and his love simultaneously. In the flesh rather than the work of the Spirit, it is easy to say we are showing holiness and it only be egotistic pride and hardness. Equally in the flesh rather than the work of the Spirit it is easy to say we are showing forth love and it only be egotistic compromise, latitudinarianism and accommodation. Both are equally easy in the flesh. Both are equally egotistic. To show forth both simultaneously, in personal matters, church and public life can only be done in any real degree by our consciously bowing, denying our egotistic selves and letting Christ bring forth His fruit through us—not merely as a “religious” statement, but with some ongoing reality. When we leave to begin a new denomination for Christ’s sake it is so easy to be proud, to be hard toward true brothers in Christ who differ with us, to those who hold to the Bible’s principles but nevertheless do not think the time is right. It is easy to be self-righteous and to self-righteously think that we are so right on this one point that anything else may be excused—very easy, a very easy thing to fall into. These mistakes were indeed made, and we have suffered from this and the cause of Christ has suffered from this through these now 50 years. By God’s grace as we begin together, let us consciously look to our Lord for His help not to give Satan the victory by making this tragic error.

But equally, let us not allow any place for confusing Christian love with compromise, latitudinarianism and accommodation! The spirit of our age is syncretism in all the areas of life, in all the areas of thought. The spirit of our age is syncretism, and thus accommodation is the rule. The spirit of our age is the age of syncretism in contrast in truth versus error; and this being so, accommodation is the common mentality.

Those in the churches who said they were practicing love but who confused this with compromise and accommodation have not been static in their error. Compromise is never static. It always progresses. Thus what began as ecclesiastical compromise has become the acceptance of a series of tragedies, a series of things which deny truth as truth. A series of tragedies which rest in the loss of the realization that truth as truth demands differen-tiation. Accomodation progresses and it is increasingly forgotten that truth, if it is really truth and not just subjective truth inside of our own head, demands confrontation, loving confrontation, but confrontation. If I lose the concept of confrontation it must be asked, do I believe that truth is truth. We must remind each other that all must be with true love and that the exhibition of God’s holiness must never be confused with hardness. Yet equally we must realize the responsibility to show forth and practice holiness as we go on together filling a great need in the church of Christ today not just in Presbyterian circles but in the church as a whole, and then in our society and in our culture. We have a great responsibility in our Pres-byterian circles, but it doesn’t stop there. It goes on, our responsibility, our duty, our privilege, as we become one, concerning the whole church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then out into the society and the culture.

Those who took the path of accommodation have not stopped on the level of one ecclesiastical unit but have had much to do in shaping that which is known as evangelicalism today.

At this point I would like to repeat a part of the talk I gave earlier this year at the Congress on the Bible in San Diego:

When Dr. Koop, Franky and I were in the midst of the seminars of “Whatever Happened to the Human Race,” one of us received a leter from someone in the evangelical ranks. He holds a good theological position in regard to Scripture and I like him. In his letter, however, he said: “I see the emergence of a new sort of fundamentalist legalism. That was the case in the trust conceiving ‘false evangelicals’ in the inerrancy issue and is also the case on the part of some who are now saying that the evangelical cause is betrayed by any who allow exceptions of any sort in government funding in abortion.” Now, speaking of the abortion issue, of course we would have to give some clarification. I know of no Protestant who does not take into consideration the health of the mother. If with tears the doctor cannot save both of his patients, the child and the mother, this is taken into consideration. It is all the other qualifications which are tacked on to the statement, I am against abortion except for this, that, the other thing, and 20 things more. And when we come to that place we have a question to ask, the question is raised if those who do this understand that it is human life as such that is involved in contrast to some individual’s or society’s concept of their own happiness. And when somebody tacks on all these exceptions one must say, do they understand all that truth means in the area of human life and the tremendous issues involved of human life as human life being important because we are made in the image of God in contrast to human life being able to be destroyed for either the individual’s happiness, the mother who thinks it’s for her happiness, or for society’s good. One must ask, do people really understand this, do they understand what truth means when they indeed forget what the real issue is at the level of human life?

I would like to consider the phrase &quota new sort of fundamentalist legalism&quot in regard to all the areas we have been talking about.

If what is involved in the phrase “fundamentalist legalism” is the loveless thing that some of us have known in the past, we of course reject it totally. The love of God and the holiness of God, as I’ve said before, must always be evident simultaneously. And if anyone has wandered off and later they see their mistake and they return, then surely the attitude should be not one of pride on our part that we have been right, but the attitude must be one of joy, and the playing of joyous music, and the singing of songs, and yes I would even say dancing in the streets because there has been a real return.

Again, if the phrase &quotfundamentalistic legalism&quot means the down-playing of the humanities as unhappily has so often been the case in certain circles, the failure to know that the intellect, that human creativity by Christians and non-Christians, that the scholarly, that the Lordship of Christ in all of life are all important and are included in true spirituality, then my work of 40 and more years and the books and the films, would speak of my denying it totally.

And if the term “a new legalistic fundamentalism” means the confusion of primary and secondary points of doctrine in life this too should be rejected.

But when we have said all that, when we come to the central things of doctrine including maintaining the Bible’s emphasis that it is without mistake an the central things of life, then something must be profoundly considered. Truth carries with it confrontation, loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless. If our reflex action is always accommodation regardless of the centrality of the truth involved, there is something profoundly wrong. As what we may call holiness without love is not God’s kind of holiness, so what we may call love without holiness including when it is necessary confrontation, is not God’s kind of love. God is holy and God is love.

This ends the segment that I have taken from the San Diego talk, and now to pick up and go on: That which has come out of the concept of accomodation has indeed grrown and spread. First ecclesiastical accommodation. Then when the Scriptures were with the existential methodology in the evangelical ranks this mentality meant that leadership was not provided in saying that here was a watershed issue which required a line to be drawn between those who held the historic view of Scripture and the new and weaker view. Now this is not to say that htose who hold and held this view are not often brothers and sisters in Christ nor that we should not have warm loving personal relationships with them, but when one is considering the issue of Scripture at this point we should realize that the name evangelical really must be considered here, and the name evangelical was continued to be accepted and used about seminaries and other institutions as though their unscriptural view of Scripture made no real difference. This is real accommodation.

And when the human life issue came upon us, this same mentality of accommodation meant that no leadership was provided in meeting the issue any more than it had been in the scriptural issue. There was a great silence on this issue until some of God’s people stirred themselves—largely and in many places in spite of the leadership that had the sense of accommodation. They had forgotten that the unique value of human life is unbreakably linked with the fact of the existence of the infinite-personal God.

But I would say, the accommodation does not stop; the whole culture has been squandered and largely lost. Eighty years ago there was a Christian consensus in this country; all the most devastating things that have come have come in the last 40 years. Anybody who here is 55 years of age, all the most devastating things in every area of our culture, whether it be art or music, whether it be law or government, whether it’s the schools, permissiveness and all the rest, all these things have come climactically in our adult lifehood if you’re 55 years of age. But, the mentality of accommodation did not raise the voice, it did not raise the battle, it did not call God’s people to realize that this is a part of the task to speak out into the culture and society against that which was being squandered and lost and largely thrown away. An accommodation mentality ecclesiastically in the earlier years led to a lack of confrontation in our culture, society and in the country. As the great loss occurred in sliding from a Christian consensus to a humanistic one from the 40’s onward more and more things were lost, more and more things were allowed to be robbed, more and more things slid away.

And, let us say with tears, if one has the mentality of accommodation we must realize that it will still continue. A mentality of accommodation provides no basis for confrontation with tears concerning the oppression of Christians by those countries that hold the final reality to be merely material or energy shaped by pure chance. This mentality of accommodation provides no basis for a clear and public stand for our brothers and sisters in Christ who know oppression in such a situation. The mentality of accommodation provides no basis for a cry against tyranny as tyranny—not only tyranny against Christians but tyranny against Man, spelled with a capital “M,” who is made in the image of God. The mentality of accommodation provides no basis for fighting tyranny such as our forefathers fought tyranny, as we know the great and flaming names of the Scottish background and the Reformation who really stood not just against tyranny against Christians but understood that a Christian is called upon to stand against all tyranny. The mentality of accommodation provides no basis against not only internal tyranny in such countries as I’ve described but an expanding tyranny to new parts of Europe and the globe. A mentality of accommodation provides no basis for a strong stand in this situation.

This is not our common heritage. As Presbyterians our heritage is with a Calvin who dared to stand against the Dukes of Savoy regardless of what it cost. Our heritage is with a John Knox who taught us, as I’ve stressed in A Christian Manifesto, a great theology of standing against tyranny. Our heritage is with a Samuel Rutherford who wrote those flaming words, Lex Rex—only the law is king and “king” under any name must never be allowed to arbitrary law. Are you Presbyterians? Have we a Presbyterian body? These men are the men who give us our heritage—Calvin and his position, John Knox and his, Samuel Rutherford his, and no less than these in our own country, a John Witherspoon who understood that tyranny must be met and must be met squarely because tyranny is wrong. These who understood that true love in this fallen world often meant the acceptance of the tears which go with confrontation. None of us like confrontation, or I hope none of us do. But in a fallen world there is confrontation, there is confrontation concerning truth, there must be confrontation against evil and that which is wrong. The love must be there but so must the hard thing of acting upon differentiation, the differentiation God gives between truth and falsehood, between what is just, based on God’s existence and His justice, and injustice.

We are Presbyterian; we are Reformed. But our being together and our responsibility and opportunity does not stop merely with being Presbyterian and Reformed. As one as we now are, we can in some measure speak with the balance of love and holiness to help to provide help for the poor church of the Lord Jesus Christ as a whole in this country; and then beyond into the world to provide help for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in helping stop this awful slide. This slide in regard to the church, this slide in regard to Scripture, this slide in regard to human life, this slide regarding the oppression of our brothers and sisters in Christ, this slide in regard to tyranny toward others in the world. It is forgotten that a part of the Good News is to take a stand; that is a part of the Good News in a broken, as well as lost, world. The very preaching of the Good News is taking a stand, but it’s forgotten that just as we heard from the former
moderator that there isn’t a dichotomy between the proclamation of the Word and caring for people’s material needs with compassion and love, so also it must be emphasized that there is no dichotomy between preaching the Good News and taking a stand—and in fact, if there is nothing to take a stand upon there is no reason for preaching the Good News.

We are to be Presbyterian and Reformed, but that is not the limiting circle of our responsibility. I would say to you, I plead with you concerning this, we are to be Reformed and Presbyterian but that is not the limiting circle of our responsibility. Our distinctives are not to be the chasm. We hold our distinctives because we are convinced that they are biblical. But God’s call is to love and be one with all those who are in Christ Jesus and then to let God’s truth speak into the whole spectrum of life and the whole spectrum of society. That is our calling. The limiting circle is not to be just that we are Presbyterian and Reformed. We hold these things because we believe indeed they are that which is taught in Scripture. But out beyond that there is the responsibility, there is the call, to be something to the whole church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and out beyond the church of the Lord Jesus Christ to the whole society and to the whole culture. If we don’t understand this we don’t understand either how rich Christianity is and God’s truth is, nor do we understand how wide is the call placed upon the Christian into the totality of life. Jesus could not be said to be Savior unless we also say He is Lord. And we cannot honestly and rightly say He is our Lord if He is only a Lord of part of the life and not of the totality of life including all the social and political and the cultural life.

Our limitation of responsibility is not to be merely, as we being together, within the circle of Presbyterian and Reformed though it is to be this

We begin together. May we ask God’s grace that we may do well in the whole extent of the possibility of our calling. I want to tell you I doubt if many of you realize how great the possibility of your calling is as you sit here today. It is tremendous. There is a tremendous need in our day. We have largely lost our culture. The poor church has not been give a clear direction. You have tremendous opportunity; you have a calling this day; I have a calling this day; we have a calling this day by God’s grace that we may do well in the whole extent of the possibility of our calling.

It is intriguing to me that in the last six months that some important voices in the media and some of those who are pushing for a pluralistic church have been using the designations: “separatist” and “ecumenical,” I’m intrigued because I haven’t heard these terms used like this for a number of years. We do not wish to be separatist in any poor sense and we do not wish to be ecumenical in the bad sense. But whatever terms distinguish the difference, as we begin together because truth is truth, we must be willing ecclesiastically, concerning the Scripture, concerning human life, concerning oppression of our brothers and sisters in Christ, and concerning the spread of tyranny, we must be willing when it is necessary to accept the privilege and the duty of confrontation rather than accommodation. This is the command of Scripture, and it is the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us be committed to each other, to the commands of the Scripture and to the example of the Lord Jesus Christ of understanding that truth is truth. We are not opposing these things for abstract doctrinal concepts, but what we are talking about is truth. We are talking about truth, and truth is not abstract. Truth is rooted in nothing less than the truth that God exists. This is the truth and that He has revealed Himself in the Scripture and He has sent His son to die for sinners like ourselves. If these things are really truth then it is not a place for synthesis, it is a place for antithesis. With love it is a place for confrontation and not just a mistaken accommodation which lacks a proper exhibition of God’s holiness.

Dr. Schaeffer’s message was later reprinted in the first issue of Equip magazine, a publication of the Christian Education & Publications Committee of the PCA. The message was reproduced on pages 7 – 9 of the April 1995 issue (Vol. 1, No. 1). Reflecting on the article, the editor asked these questions in a sidebar:

  1. What do we mean when we speak of our common heritage and why is it important?

  2. What is the difference between uniformity and unity?

  3. Schaeffer refers to Christian compromise demonstrated by accomodation and latitudinarianism. Give some examples.

  4. What is a Christian consensus and has that ever prevailed in America?

  5. Is our role more limited or more enhanced because of our common Reformed and Presbyterian heritage? In the church? In the world?

  6. Schaeffer talks about our calling. What is our calling as individuals? As a denomination? As members of the universal church?

  7. Discuss some specfic ways in which we can actually do “loving confrontation.”

Tags: , , ,

Boardman and Boice – Two Teaching Elders of Tenth Presbyterian

They were one hundred and twenty years apart in the pulpit and pastoral ministry of the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. But they both have a common identity in more than one way which this author finds interesting.

boardman01First, they were a part of the famous “B’s” of the church. On their own website, someone takes note that there were five “B’s” who filled the pulpit of Tenth Presbyterian. Each pastorate was characterized as being of long length. They were: Henry Augustus Boardman (1833—1876, or 43 years long); William Pratt Breed (1856 to 1889 or 33 years long); Marcus A Brownson (1892 – 1924, or 27 years long); Donald Grey Barnhouse (1927 – 1960 or 33 years long); and James Montgomery Boice (1968 to 2000, or 32 years long). The reader can see the first and the last names of this distinguished list of “B’s” being the two subjects of this post.

A second feature shared by both Revs. Boardman and Boice were the major shifts in affiliation which took place during each of their ministries. In the case of Pastor Boardman, just as he was to be ordained and installed as pastor of the church by the Second Presbytery, which was a presbytery of the New School, that presbytery was dissolved by the Synod of Philadelphia, which was Old School Presbyterian! The whole issue would not be made final until the General Assembly would meet the following month of May, when the General Assembly lopped off all New School Presbyteries from the rolls of the church.(See details on our January 9, 2013 post). Pastor Boardman was able to finally align the congregation of Tenth Presbyterian with the Old School folks.

boiceJMThen in the case of James Boice, it was during his pastorate that the Session (board of elders) at Tenth was coming to terms with the fact that their denomination, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. was straying from biblical orthodoxy. In 1979, Tenth Presbyterian Church managed to leave that denomination and join the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod denomination. Three years later, that denomination joined the Presbyterian Church in America, and so Tenth Presbyterian became a member church of the PCA.

Lastly, we note an interesting sign of God’s providence, namely, it was on this day in Presbyterian history, June 15, that both pastors—Henry Augustus Boardman and James Montgomery Boice—were called into the presence of their Lord and God. Henry Boardman died on June 15, 1880, and James Boice died this same day of the year, June 15, in 2000.

Words to Live By:
There is no such thing as “chance” or “fortune” or “luck” in the annals of biblical history. All events, happenings, and actions fall under the sovereign will of God who moves when and where and how He pleases. Some people (and hopefully not our readers of this web magazine) may find the above similarities odd, but we who receive the whole counsel of God know that the God of the Bible plans all of our actions according to His sovereign will for our lives. Let that biblical truth permeate your life this day, and always.

For Further Reading:
Rev. Rick Phillips, pastor of Second Presbyterian church in Greenville, SC, has written of his friendship with Dr. James Boice. Click here to read his recent article.

Tags: , ,

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 23. — What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?

A. — Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.

Scripture References: Acts 3:22; Luke 4:18-21; Heb. 5:5-6; 4:14-15; Rev. 19:16; Isa. 9:6-7; Ps. 2:6.

Questions:

1. What do we mean by the term “office”?

The word “office” comes from the Latin “officium” and means any special duty or trust or charge laid upon or taken up by one person to perform for another. It is interesting to note that the term is never used to indicate what a person does for himself but is always implying what a man does for another. It is a term that is not used o in Scripture, but is a Theological term used in our Standards.

2. What does it mean to “execute” an office?

To execute an office is to do or perform all that belongs to the office.

3. Was Jesus Christ ordained or appointed to these offices?

Yes, Christ was ordained to these offices from all eternity.
(I Pet. 1 :20)

4. Why was it necessary for Christ to take upon Himself these three
offices?

It was necessary for our salvation. Our salvation was revealed by Him as a Prophet; purchased by Him as a Priest; and applied by Him as a King. A wonderful way of putting this was the way used by the Rev. John R. Mackay of the Free Church of Scotland as quoted by Dr. William Childs Robinson: “When I looked into my own heart I could see nothing but darkness, guilt and pride. But then I remembered that Chris!; is a Prophet who can dispel my darkness. Christ is a Priest who can remove my guilt. Christ Is a King who can humble my pride.”

5. Is there anyone else in Scripture that had all three of these offices?

No, no one in Scripture had all three but Christ, not even those who were typical of Him in the Old Testament.

6. In what ways does Christ execute these offices?

He executes these offices in His state of humiliation here on earth and continues to do so In His state of exaltation now in heaven.

OUR REDEEMER

Every time I see the word “Redeemer” in print I think of the verse in Titus 2:14, a glorious verse for the Christian: “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” The fact of redemption is taught over and over again in the church. Our standards teach it and mean by it “the necessary, objective, voluntary, expiatory, propitiatory. substitutionary, and efficacious character of the act of Christ whereby He gave Himself for us.” (Hendriksen). The result of redemption is sometimes neglected by the church.

Titus 2: 14 gives us a good picture of what God expects to be the result of redemption. Surely the result of redemption is for the purpose of redeeming us from our iniquity. It is equally important that it be for the purpose of purifying unto himself a “peculiar” people, people that would have a real desire for good works. It is in this latter area the church of today seems to fail.

Not long ago I heard a man preach a sermon on the need for a twentieth century reformation. The point was brought out that in the church of today there are many more Christians than in the first century but there is a greater lack of power within the large group. I have often wondered if the answer to this problem of lack of power does not have something to do with the low standard approach used by the church of today. As is true in so many circles of education, mediocrity is the standard of the church. This means that there are always a few that will rise above the standard but the average person will fall below the standard set. The standard of the church today seems to have something to do with being a people of His very own and those with a zealous attitude of good works. The fact of redemption is taught and believed by many. The results of redemption are bypassed in so many cases. The church has almost reached the place of being afraid to speak up and out against the ungodliness and worldly lusts and is afraid to raise the standard to God’s standards, not simply a standard that is above the reproach of the Society of which it is a part.

If we are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb we should thank God! But it does not end there. We must demonstrate the reality of our redeemed nature. (James 2:17-18).

Published By:
THE SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Vol. 2 No. 23 (November 1962)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor
November, 1962

Tags:

« Older entries § Newer entries »