Southern Presbyterian

You are currently browsing articles tagged Southern Presbyterian.

In 1973, conservative Presbyterians left the old Southern Presbyterian denomination and formed The National Presbyterian Church. A year later, when it became known that there was a name conflict with another organization, the young denomination chose to simply change its name, and soon selected the name, Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has a somewhat similar story. That denomination was originally organized in 1936 under the name of The Presbyterian Church of America. However, in this latter case, the mother church—the one they had leftfiled a lawsuit against the new denomination, seeking to prohibit their use of that name. Finally, in 1938, the defendants lost their case and were forced to adopt a new name. [Correction: My counterpart in the OPC, John Muether, was good to note that rather than actually losing their case in court, the OPC instead came to the conclusion that they did not have the resources to pursue the case through the courts, and so surrendered rather than spend more money and time on the fight.] Since that time the denomination has been known as The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The following several news clippings come from the collection of the Rev. Henry G. Welbon, preserved at the PCA Historical Center. 

1936_fight_for_namePhiladelphia Bulletin, August 20, 1936:
Fight for Name of Presbyterian.
New Body Engages Counsel to Defend Its Use of the Title
General Assembly Suit

Machen-Fundamentalist Presbyterians said today that they intend to make a vigorous legal fight to retain their right to use the name of the Presbyterian Church of America.

This decision comes as a result of the filing of a suit by the General Assemlbyof the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.–the parent organizationAug. 13, in which the use of that name by the new body is contested.

“The Presbyterian Church of America,” said the Rev. Edwin H. Rian, general secretary of the Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension of the new Presbyterian body, “has retained a well known Philadelphia law firm to represent it in the suit.

“The Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths, D.D., has been employed to act as ecclesiastical counsel. Dr. Griffiths is regarded as an authority in Presbyterian law.

“Through its counsel, The Presbyterian Church of America expects to make a vigorous fight to protect its right to the use of that name.

“The very essence of religious liberty is involved in this case. Christians in every church will want to know if one church body can dictate to another.

“The Presbyterian Church of America has no desire to enter the civil courts, but the action of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has made it obligatory. The Presbyterian Church of America will fight this case to a finish.”

New York Times, August 20, 1936, p. 23:
CHURCH GETS COUNSEL

Seceding Presbyterians Prepare to Fight Injunction Suit.

Philadelphia, August 19. — The Presbyterian Church of America, organized here in June by seceding Fundamentalists, prepared today to defend itself against an injunction suit filed in Commons Pleas Court last week by the parent denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

The defendant group announced that the firm of Sault, Ewing, Remick & Saul of this city will serve as its legal counsel, with the Rev. Dr. H. McAllister Griffiths of The Presbyterian Guardian, acting as ecclesiastical counsel.

The parent church is seeking to enjoin the secessionists from using the name Presbyterian, or any similar name or one with similar import, in the title of their organization.

machen-master-1936Lawrence, MA Evening Tribune, August 21, 1936:
Church Battle Goes to Court

Presbyterians of the nation have shifted to the courts the bitter fight which brought a schism in the church. Suit has been filed by Moderator Henry B. Master, of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., to prevent the new denomination headed by Dr. J. Gresham Machen from using the name “Presbyterian.” Dr. Machen leads the fundamentalists who split with the modernists.

 

Words to Live By:
“A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold.” (Proverbs 22:1, ESV)

Set a guard over your tongue, and watch carefully your actions before men. In all that you say, in all that you do, live to the glory of our Lord and our God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

machen-master-1936

Tags: , , , ,

chaferLS.Yep. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, was a Presbyterian. As was Chafer’s mentor, C. I. (Cyrus Ingerson) Scofield, and as was Scofield’s mentor, James H. Brookes. Presbyterians all. Perhaps that helps to explain how it was the dispensationalism made such inroads into Presbyterian circles in the era from the 1880’s to the 1930’s. That, and the fact that dispensationalists did a fair job of defending the Scriptures when few others. apart from the Princeton conservatives, would or could.

Lewis Sperry Chafer was born in Ashtabula county, Ohio, on February 27, 1871. His parents were the Rev. Thomas Franklin Chafer, a Congregationalist pastor, and Lois Lomira Sperry Chafer, the daughter of a Welsh Wesleyan lay preacher. When Lewis was just eleven, his father died of tuberculosis. Lewis developed an interest in music while attending the New Lyme Institute as he prepared for college. At Oberlin College, he majored in music and met his future wife, Ella Loraine Case. After their marriage in 1896, he began to serve as an evangelist.

An invitation to teach at the Northfield Boys School in turn led to a close friendship with C. I. Scofield, and as they say, the rest is history. Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924 as the Evangelical Theological College, continues to this day. Its founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer, died on August 22, 1952.

In a prior post we talked about Milo Jamison’s role in the split that created the Bible Presbyterian Church. Jamison was a dispensationalist, while the recently formed denomination that was renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was quickly aligning itself against that system. In the last several decades, dispensationalism as a system has been going through a number of changes, but historically it has been anchored to three key tenets: (1) A “normal, literal” interpretation of Scripture; (2) A strict distinction between Israel and the Church; and (3) a scheme of dispensations or ages which divide up Biblical history. The latter two points are particularly where we find ourselves in disagreement with dispensationalism.

D. James Kennedy, when examining men for ordination, would routinely ask for the candidate’s views on dispensationalism, and whether the candidate approved or disapproved of the 1944 Southern Presbyterian report on dispensationalism. And Dr. Kennedy was right to use that Report in that way. However, the untold story behind that PCUS report is that in all likelihood, the Report was an attempt to split the conservatives in the Southern Presbyterian denomination, many of whom at that time were dispensationalists. As modernists were gaining power in the PCUS, the 1944 Report gave them an opportunity to set one camp of conservatives over against another and so dampen opposition to their own agenda.

In Sum:
Few conservative Presbyterians today consider themselves dispensationalists. The old Reformation doctrine—really the old Biblical doctrine—of covenant theology is being taught once again, and taught well in our seminaries and in our churches. How it came to be virtually ignored in the 19th-century is something of a mystery, but the general lack of such teaching in that era does help to explain the rise of dispensationalism during the same time period. Nature abhors a vacuum.

For Further Study:
One of the better popular-level works on covenant theology is O. Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants. Ask your pastor about other helpful materials on this important subject.

Image source: From a photograph on file at the PCA Historical Center, with the scan prepared by the staff of the Historical Center. The photograph lacks any indication as to who the photographer might have been.

Tags: , , ,

Newer entries »