How Many of You Know . . .

Mention the name of Pearl Buck and countless Americans will immediately think of the award-winning book “The Good Earth.”  And indeed Pearl Buck did write that famous work and many other novels which earned her both a Pulitzer prize as well as a Nobel prize for literature.  But how many Americans, and even church folks, know that she was instrumental in bringing about the original Presbyterian Church of America in 1936?  And yet she was.

Born of missionary parents in China associated with the Southern Presbyterian church in West Virginia, Pearl Buck returned with her husband to China as missionaries under the Board of Foreign Missions of the northern Presbyterian Church.

In 1932, the book “Rethinking Missions” was published. It stated that its aim was to do exactly what the title suggested, namely, to change the purpose of sending foreign missionaries to the world.  Its aim was to seek the truth from the religions to which it went, rather than to present the truth of historic Christianity.  There should be a common search for truth as a result of missionary ministry, was the consensus of this book.  Pearl Buck agreed one hundred per cent with the results of this book.  She believed that every American Christian should read it.

To her, Jesus ceased to be the divine son of God, virgin born, and conceived by the Holy Spirit.  There was no original sin in her belief structure.  All these truths of historic Christianity made the gospel to be a superstition, a magical religion, and should be done away with by the church, and subsequent mission boards.

Obviously, with beliefs like this, Pearl Buck became the focus of men like J. Gresham Machen, who published a 110 page book on the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.  That treatment was freely presented to the congregations of the Northern Presbyterian Church.  The result was that Pearl Buck was forced to resign from the China mission, though the Presbyterian Board accepted that resignation with regret.

Eventually, the situation of the China Mission was a powerful basis for forming the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions in 1933. True Bible-believing Presbyterians needed to have one board which would only send missionaries to foreign lands who believed that Jesus was the only way, truth, and life to God.  Pearl Buck did not believe this biblical truth.

Pearl Buck passed into eternity on March 6, 1973.

For further study: 
“Pearl Buck’s Comments upon the death of J. Gresham Machen.”

Words to Live By: The New Testament author,  Jude, writes about those who “creep in unnoticed” into the church, who “deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”  As long as the church is on earth, there will be a need for Christians to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered unto the saints.” (ESV  – James 3, 4)

“To God’s Glory” : A Practical Study of a Doctrine of the Westminster Standards
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

THE SUBJECT : Divine Guidance

THE BIBLE VERSES TO READ : Matt. 6:10; 26:39; Ps. 40:8; 67; 103:20-21; 119:36; 143:10; 2 Sam. 15:25; Job 1:21; Eph. 6:6.

REFERENCE TO THE STANDARDS : Confession of Faith, chap. I.6; Larger Catechism, Q. 192; Shorter Catechism, Q. 103.

“Not with eye service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart” (Eph. 6:6).

“I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8).

Two verses from the Word of God, both of them speaking to us regarding the will of God.

The question has been asked again and again by believers : How can we find the will of God for our lives? This is an important question for believers are commanded by God to seek out, to follow, His will in their daily living.

The two verses above have three basic principles for believers regarding finding the will of God :
1. The believer has a duty, a privilege, to do the will of God as a servant of Christ;
2. The believer has a responsibility to delight to do the will of God;
3. The believer must recognize there is an inseparable connection between the will of God and the Word of God.

First, it must be considered as to what is meant by the will of God. When the believer prays the Lord’s Prayer and states, “Thy will be done,” he is meaning by God’s will two things :
(1) His will of providence in which He determines what He will do for us and to us. This is the will of His decree (“His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass” — Shorter Catechism, Question 7) as taught in Isa. 46:10.
(2) His will as revealed to us in the Bible and for which we should be constantly praying.

With these thoughts in mind, a consideration of how to find God’s will is in order. Immediately, we must think of an important factor. A knowledge of the will of God is always paralleled with a desire to do the will of God. And a desire to do the will of God comes with an attitude of commitment to our Lord.

Therefore, whenever we think of knowing the will of God we must be willing to submit ourselves unto His Word. And right here is where the problem presents itself too many times in regard to finding out His will. Too many believers become trapped by methods used by Satan as they seek to find out God’s will for their lives.

There are many methods Satan would use to lead believers away from what is God’s will for their lives. Let us list a few of these ways so that we might be on guard :

1. Satan suggests : “If you feel right about something, it must be the will of God.”

2. Satan suggests : “Certainly, revelation did not stop with the last verse of Scripture. After all, those things were written for the people of that time. Therefore, God’s will can be found apart from just God’s Word.”

What is wrong with his suggestions? Both of them ignore a basic premise to which all believers should be dedicated : The Word of God is our ONLY rule of faith and practice (Confession of Faith, I.6). This is the only standard from which we can find His will. The principles of God’s Word must be used in any given incident in finding the will of God. God’s Word is sufficient for this purpose. The task of the believer is to apply His Word to all of life, to be convinced that the Holy Spirit will never lead contrary to God’s Word!

Therefore, in obtaining guidance from God, the method of the believer must be that of a constant study of God’s Word. The more study accomplished, the more God’s principles become fixed in the mind of the believer, the better the believer can know God’s will.

This is presented clearly by Paul in II Tim. 3:15-17. He tells the believer of what use the Scripture is and then proceeds to inform the believer that it is through God’s Word that the believer can be equipped unto every good work. Certainly, a good work would be the finding of God’s will. It is God’s Word that is sufficient for this task.

Two warnings should be heeded. First, the Bible does not always give the believer a complete blueprint for life. Sometimes it does not even give a glimmer of light. The believer must trust during those times when He keeps hidden the working out of His providence.

Second, the believer needs to be careful to understand that there are certain things that are God’s will! For example, that of being good stewards (I Cor. 4:2), of living a holy life (I Thess. 4:3). This is clear teaching in God’s Word!

Next in our series on conservative Presbyterian response to the Auburn Affirmation is this editorial from the 18 March 1926 issue of The Presbyterian.  The editorial comes from the pen of either Rev. David S. Kennedy or Rev. Samuel G. Craig, both men serving as co-editors at that time and the editorial is unsigned.  What is noteworthy in this particular editorial is the estimation by the author, in obvious but well-meaning error, that the incursion of modernism into the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. was not severe.

Are There Two Religions in the Presbyterian Church?

It has long been recognized by leaders of Christian thought that the triumph of Modernism would spell defeat for Christianity.  That Modernism and Christianity are diametrically opposed, all along the line, has been set forth most fully and convincingly by Dr. Machen in his well-known book, Christianity and Liberalism.  It is not to be supposed, however, that Dr. Machen was the discoverer of this fact : it had found clear and cogent expression long before Dr. Machen had been heard of in the theological world.  For instance, as long ago as 1891, Dr. F.L. Patton is on record as saying :

“It seems to me that American Christianity is about to pass through a severe ordeal.  It may be a ten years’ conflict, it may be a thirty years’ war ; but it is a conflict in which all Christian churches are concerned.  The war will come . . . It is not amendment, it is not revision, it is not re-statement, it is revolution that we shall have to face.  The issue will be joined by and by on the essential truth of a miraculous and God-given revelation ; and then we must be ready to fight, and, if need be, to die, in defense of the bloog-bought truths of the common salvation.”

To cite one more instance, it was in 1898 that Dr. Abraham Kuyper said in his Stone Lectures at Princeton :

There is no doubt that Christianity is imperiled by great and serious dangers.  Two life systems are wrestling with one another in mortal combat.  Modernism is bound to build a world on its own from the data of nature ; while, on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the Living God, and God Himself, are bent on saving the Christian heritage.  This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America . . . in which I myself have been spending all my energy for nearly forty years.”

There are comparatively few in Presbyterian circles, we suppose, who would deny that the left wing of Modernism, as represented in this country by men like Kirsopp Lake, A.C. McGiffert, and Shailer Matthews, obviously involves the rejection of historic Christianity ; and none at all, we suppose, who would maintain that such representatives of Modernism should be welcomed into the Presbyterian Church.  As far as this left wing of Modernism is concerned, the dictum of the Christian Century is acceptable, we suppose, to practically all Presbyterians :

“Two world-views, two moral ideals, two sets of personal attitudes, have clashed, and it is a cast of ostrich-like intelligence blindly to deny and evade the searching and serious character of the issue.  Christianity, according to fundamentalism, is one religion.  Christianity, according to modernism, is another religion . . . There is a clash here as profound and as grim as that between Christianity and Confuscianism.  Amiable words cannot hide the differences.  ‘Blest be the tie’ may be sung until doom’s day, but it cannot bind these two worlds together.  The God of the fundamentalist is one God ; the God of the modernist is another.  The Christ of the fundamentalist is one Christ ; the Christ of modernism is another.  The Bible of fundamentalism is one Bible ; the Bible of modernism is another.  The church, the kingdom, the salvation, the consummation of all things — these are one thing to fundamentalists and another thing to modernists.”

But while there are few, if any, in Presbyterian circles who hold that the Presbyterian Church should be “inclusive” enough to include the left wing of Modernism, there are many who confidently maintain that such modernists as are to be found in the Presbyterian Church — practically all of whom belong to the right wing of Modernism — constitute a desirable element that should be retained and, if possible, increased.  Dr. Machen’s book, referred to above, has been sharply criticised by a number of Presbyterians. These critics, however, have made little or no effort to disprove his contention that “modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity, but belongs in a totally different class of religions.”  They have contented themselves rather with endeavoring to show that the “teachings therein described as characteristic of liberalism are unknown in the Presbyterian Church.”  This holds good even of Dr. Merrill.  His recent book, Liberal Christianity, is not a defense of Liberalism in general, but rather of the right wing of Liberalism.  It is not a defense of the right of modernists in general to call themselves Christians and to remain in the ministry of the Presbyterian Church, but merely the right of modernists like himself to call themselves Christians and to take part in this ministry.  No one maintains, as far as we know, that Modernism in its extreme manifestations is prevalent within the Presbyterian Church.  When, therefore, the question is asked, “Are There Two Religions in the Presbyterian Church?” what is meant is whether even such Modernism as prevails in the Presbyterian Church has departed so far from Christianity as to be no longer entitled to call itself Christian.

We have already given our reasons for holding that Modernism, even of this less extreme type, is an essentially different type of religion than historic Christianity.  We did this with special fulness in our review of Dr. Merrill’s book in our issue of December 3, 1925.  They have been given in an abler and more relentless manner by Floyd E. Hamilton, in the current issue of The Princeton Theological Review, as we pointed out in our issue of March 4.  Now, if Dr. Merrill’s utterances had met with little or no approval in Presbyterian circles, like, for instance, the utterances of his more radical collegue in Union Theological Seminary, Professor Fagnani, they would afford slight evidence that Modernism has any real foot-hold in the Presbyterian Church.  As a matter of fact, however, Dr. Merrill is recognized as a leader by a considerable number of Presbyterian ministers.  His book has been praised and commended not only by men like President Stewart, of Auburn Seminary, and Professor Zenos, of McCormick Seminary, but by papers like The Continent and The Presbyterian Advance.  The reception his book has received offers obvious proof that Dr. Merrill was not mistaken in thinking that it expresses the faith preached in liberal pulpits ; and, hence, that in many Presbyterian pulpits “another gospel” is being preached.  No doubt, all the so-called Modernists in the Presbyterian Church have not departed as far from historic Christianity in their teachings as has Dr. Merrill.  Doubtless, some of them have departed further.  But be this as it may, it should be obvious to all that even within the Presbyterian Church there is an element that must be extruded if it is to maintain its historic and corporate witness as a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In its issue of March 4, The Continent points to the “Affirmation” of 1923 as proof that “what we have within our Church is not two religions, but two approaches to the great realities of our common faith.”  It should not be overlooked, however, that The Continentquotes only one passage of the Affirmation, and that without regard to its context — a deed that does not seem to us altogether ingenuous.  The passage cited is the so-called brief creed of the Affirmation :

“We all hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines ; we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the Bible were inspired of God ; that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh ; that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, and that through him we have our redemption ; that, having died for our sins, he rose from the dead and is our everlasting Saviour ; and that in his earthly ministry he wrought many mighty works, and by his vicarious death and unfailing presence his is able to save to the uttermost.”

Now, it must no doubt seem to the ordinary reader that the fact than an Affirmation containing such a creed was signed by men ranked as the most liberal in the Church is conclusive proof that there is essential unity of belief among Presbyterians.  That, however, is only because their attention has not been directed to another fact — to wit, that this same Affirmation expressly denies that the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of our Lord, his death as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, his bodily resurrection, and his working miracles are “essential doctrines of the Word of God and our Standards” ; and that in the Affirmation itself the brief creed is immediately followed by the statement that “all who hold to these fact and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.”  In a word, this brief creed, apart from its context, might be subscribed to by every evangelical ; and yet when interpreted in the light of its context, it can be subscribed by no intelligent evangelical.  We would not be understood as implying that all the signers of the Affirmation are preachers of “another gospel” — some of them we know signed it under a misapprehension of its meaning — but certainly it offers no disproof of the idea that “we have two religions among us.”

We have no means of knowing the extent to which a religion other than historic Christianity has its representatives in the Presbyterian Church.  Not to any great extent, we are disposed to think.  It seems obvious, however, not only that there are such, but that their presence is the deepest cause of unrest in the Church.

A Manual for Members

What should we expect ourselves and our fellow members to be doing for the Lord through our respective congregations?  Various answers might be forthcoming, but it is interesting what a famous congregation in the Bible Presbyterian Church specified were its members responsibilities to the Lord.

In a leaflet written on March 3, 1946, a pamphlet was published of the Collingswood, New Jersey, Bible Presbyterian Church.  After listing its pastoral staff, including the Rev. Carl McIntire, and recording  the names of the Session of Elders, Trustees, and Deacons, as well as specifying all the ministry opportunities of the church in home and abroad,  there was a section stating the purposes of its members.  It read:

 “Every member a worker” is the idea for our church.  The church is falling short of its goal unless every member attends its services regularly and engages in at least one specific service or ministry.  Here is our program for every individual member:

1. Read the Bible daily
2. Pray every day
3. Give thanks at every meal
4. Have regular family worship
5. By example and speech moment by moment, honor the Lord Jesus Christ
6. Attend church services on the Lord’s Day regularly
7. Attend the mid-week service
8. Contribute your tithe regularly and proportionately to the work of the church
9. Take an active part in at least one of the organizations or projects mentioned in this pamphlet, and
10.  Invite at least one person a month to attend the services of the Church — someone who is unsaved or unchurched.

Now, in conclusion, some of our readers, and even some of the ministers, might have objections to this list, but as you read them again, there are very few items which are not taught or inferred in the Bible as necessary traits of the disciples of the Lord Jesus.  Nevertheless, however we might think of it,  this is one congregation’s attempts over eighty years ago which sought to help its members by being faithful members of the local congregation to which they were committed.

Words to Live By:
Let us seek to fulfill our promise as members of the local church to which we are committed, to  live as becomes the followers of Christ Jesus.

When he was just 30 years old, the Rev. Gardiner Spring brought the following message on New Year’s Day, a message having to do with the subject of the revivals of religion. He is speaking here of true revivals, those which cannot be produced at will or on demand through the use of craft and techniques of persuasion. Rather, true revival depends upon the Lord’s sovereign work, when, where and how He will.
Rev. Spring was the pastor of an important New York City congregation, and though he is largely overlooked in modern times, but his early sermons are particularly rewarding.

To read or download the entire message in PDF format, click here.

SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

2 Chronicles 29:16-17:—
And the Priests went into the inner part of the house of the Lord to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness that they found in the temple of the Lord into the court of the house of the Lord. And the Levites took it, to carry it out abroad into the brook Kidron. Now they began on the first day of the first month to sanctify.

The passage just recited may give a direction to our thoughts. When Hezekiah came to the throne of Judah, he found religion in a low and languishing state. His father Ahaz was not only an idolatrous king, but notorious for his impiety. The torrent of vice, irreligion, and idolatry, had already swept away the ten tribes of Israel, and threatened to destroy Judah and Benjamin. With this state of things, the heart of pious Hezekiah was deeply affected. He could not bear to see the holy temple debased, and the idols of the Gentiles exalted; and though but a youthful prince, he made a bold, persevering, and successful attempt to effect a revival of the Jewish religion. He destroyed the high places; cut down the groves; brake the graven images; commanded the doors of the Lord’s house to be opened and repaired; and exhorted the Priests and Levites to purify the temple; to restore the morning and evening sacrifice; to reinstate the observation of the Passover; and to withhold no exertion to promote a radical reformation in the principles and habits of the people.

The humble child of God in this distant age of the world, will read the account of the benevolent efforts of Hezekiah and his associates, with devout admiration. As he looks back toward this illustrious period in the Jewish history, his heart will beat high with hope. Success is not restricted to the exertions of Hezekiah. A revival of religion is within our reach at the commencement of the present year, as really as it was within his, twenty-five hundred years ago. But to bring this subject more fully before you, I propose to show,

What a revival of religion is;

The necessity of a revival among ourselves;

What ought to be done in attempting it;—and

The reasons why we may hope to succeed in the attempt.

I. What is a revival of religion?

We have never seen a general revival of the Christian interest in this city. In two or three of our congregations, there have been some seasons of unusual solemnity, which have from time to time resulted in very hopeful accessions to the number of God’s professing people. But we have not been visited with any general outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Hence, we talk about revivals of religion without any definite meaning; and hence, many honest minds are prejudiced against them. Some identify them with the illusions of a disturbed fancy; while others give them a place among the most exceptionable extravagancies, and the wildest expressions of enthusiasm. But we mean none of these things when we speak of revivals of religion. It is no illusion—no reverie—we present to your view; but those plain exhibitions of the power and grace of God which commend themselves to the reason and conscience of every impartial mind.

The showers of divine grace often begin like other showers, with here and there a drop. The revival in the days of Hezekiah, arose from a very small beginning. In the early states of a work of grace, God is usually pleased to affect the hearts of some of His own people. Here and there, an individual Christian is aroused from his stupor. The objects of faith begin to predominate over the objects of sense and his languishing graces to be in more lively and constant exercise. In the progress of the work, the quickening power of grace pervades the church. Bowed down under a sense of their own stupidity and the impending danger of sinners, the great body of professing Christians are anxious and prayerful. In the mean time, the influences of the Holy Spirit are extended to the world; and the conversion of one or two, or a very small number, frequently proves the occasion of a very general concern among a whole people.

Every thing now begins to put on a new face. Ministers are animated; Christians are solemn; sinners are alarmed. The house of God is thronged with anxious worshipers; opportunities for prayer and religious conference are multiplied; breathless silence pervades every seat, and deep solemnity every bosom. Not an eye wanders; not a heart is indifferent;—while eternal objects are brought near, and eternal truth is seen in its wide connections, and felt in its quickening and condemning power. The Lord is there. His stately steppings are seen; His own almighty and invisible hand is felt; His Spirit is passing from heart to heart, in His awakening, convincing, regenerating, and sanctifying agency upon the souls of men.

Those who have been long careless and indifferent to the concerns of the soul, are awakened to a sense of their sinfulness, their danger, and their duty. Those who “have cast off fear and restrained prayer,” have become anxious and prayerful. Those who have been “stout-hearted and far from righteousness,” are subdued by the power of God, and brought nigh by the blood of Christ.

The king of Zion takes away the heart of stone and gives the heart of flesh. He causes “the captive exile to hasten, that he may be loosed, lest he die in the pit and his bread should fail.” He takes off the tattered garments of the prodigal; clothes him with the best robe, and gives him a cordial welcome to all the munificence of His grace. He brings those who have been long in bondage out of the prison house; knocks off the chains that bind them down to sin and death; bestows the immunities of sons and daughters, and receives them into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

And is there any thing in all this so full of mystery, that it has no claim to our confidence? Behold that thoughtless man! Year after year has passed aaway, while he has been adding sin to sin, and heaping up wrath against the day of wrath. But the Spirit of all grace suddenly arrests him in his mad career. The conviction is fastened upon his conscience that he is a sinner. Fallen by his iniquity, he views himself obnoxious to the wrath of an offended God. He sees that he is under the dominion of a “carnal mind;” his sins pass in awful review before him, and he is filled with keen distress and anguish. He is sensible that every day is bringing him nearer to the world of perdition, and he begins to ask, if there can be any hope for a wretch like him? But, O! how his strength withers, how his hopes die! He is as helpless as he is wretched, and as culpable as he is helpless. The “arrows of the almighty stick fast within him, the poison whereof drinketh up his spirits.”

But behold him now! In the last extremity, as he is cut off from every hope, the arm of sovereign mercy is made bare for his relief. The heart of adamant melts; the will that has hitherto resisted the divine Spirit, and rebelled against the divine sovereignty, is subdued; the lofty looks are brought low; the selfish mind has become benevolent; the proud, humble, the stubborn rebel, the meek child of God. Jesus tells the despairing sinner where to find a beam of hope; the voice of the Son of God proclaims “forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace;” the Angel of peace invites and sweetly urges the soul, stained with pollution, to repair to the blood of sprinkling; stung with the guilt of sin, to look up to Jesus for healing and life.

Is this an idle tale? Nay, believer, you have felt it all. And if there is no mystery in this, why should it be thought incredible, that instances of the same nature should be multiplied, and greatly multiplied in any given period? If there are dispensations of grace above the ordinary operations of the Spirit, they may exist in very different degrees at different times. And if the immediate and special influences of the Holy Ghost are to be expected in the edification of a single saint, or the conversion of a single sinner, why may they not be expected in the edification and conversion of multitudes? It is not above the reach of God’s power; nor beyond the limits of His sovereignty. God can as easily send down a shower, as a single drop; He can as easily convert two as one; three thousand as one hundred.

Now this is a revival of religion. We do not pretend to have traced the features it uniformly bears, because it bears no uniform features. God is sovereign. “The wind bloweth where it listeth.” Still, wherever God is pleased to manifest His power and grace, in enlarging the views, in enlivening and invigorating the graces of His own people, and in turning the hearts of considerable numbers of His enemies, at the same time, to seek and secure His pardoning mercy, there is a revival of religion. Read the rest of this entry »

For a much more comprehensive treatment of the subject of revival, listen to the sermons by the Rev. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, available here.