GEMS FROM SAMUEL RUTHERFORD.
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2018.
GEMS FROM SAMUEL RUTHERFORD.
This is the last of our mopping-up action, posting entries by Rev. Van Horn which we previously missed or overlooked. In the coming year, on Sundays we will be moving on to new territory, presenting portions of a catechetical work which has never be reproduced. Some time back here on This Day, we presented a small portion of this work and it was well received. So please watch for it next week. I think you will find it profitable.
STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn
A. Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.
Scripture References: Romans 6:4; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 5:25-26; Matthew 28:19.
- What are the essential points of the definition of baptism as found in our Standards?The essential points of the definitions are:
(1) It is a washing with water,
(2) It is a washing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
(3) It is done with the design to signify and seal us and make us a partaker.
- What is essential to baptism?Baptism is essentially a washing with water. No particular mode of washing is essential for there is no one mode specified in the com- mand. Water is commanded because it is a natural symbol of moral purification and it was established as such in the ritual of Moses. It is a symbol of Christ’s blood being poured out for us and our hearts being sprinkled from an evil conscience?
- Who is the author of baptism?The Lord Jesus Christ is the author of baptism and he instituted it just before His ascension into heaven (Matt. 28:19).
- In name are we baptized and what does this signify?We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and this signifies our baptism in the authority, and into the faith, profession and obedience of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
- What is meant by our engrafting into Christ?When we are engrafted into Christ we are cut off from our old na- ture and become joined to Christ and’ therefore we can grow up in Him and bring forth fruit to Him. His righteousness is imputed to us (Galatians 3:27).
- What are the benefits of the covenant of grace we receive?We are admitted into the visible church, our sins are remitted we are regenerated, and adopted and are raised to everlasting life.
A RIGHTLY USED SACRAMENT
Too many times, in churches subscribing to Reformed doctrine, the sacrament of baptism is taken too lightly. Too many parents are guilty of the attitude of thinking their task is done when they have their child baptised. Two many churches give themselves a pious pat on the back when another child is baptised and feel that their task is completed. The sacrament of baptism is used in the wrong way so many times.
It is good for us once in a while to review our beliefs about a particular doctrine. In regard to baptism, we need to be reminded again and again that a person may be saved without it and a person may be lost with it! We do not believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation. We do believe it is a sin to neglect it. Here we need to review what our Confession states regarding it: “…it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance.” Again, “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost…”
I remember hearing one time a minister holding a “renewal of the vows of baptism” in his church. He had before him a group of some twenty or thirty parents. He asked them, “Have you, as parents, been impressing upon your children the fact that they need not be afraid to die because if they love the Lord Jesus and believe that Jesus shed His blood for them and they are trusting Him to wash away their sins, they will be saved?” It was a serious time and it was a serious question. It was certainly a making of a right use of this sacrament.
One of the troubles today in churches committed to the Reformed faith is that we forget our responsibility to teach our children (as part of our baptismal vows) that God does not show any mildness apart from the offer of His Son. The Bible says, “There is none other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.” We need to remember that there are two things that must be kept before our children, baptized in infancy, can be saved:
(1) The keeping of the covenant promises by the parents,
(2) Tne public profession of the child of Jesus Christ. And the last must be followed by fruit in the life.
John Murray put it well when he said, “To suppose that we may entertain any confidence respecting the covenant grace Signified and sealed by our baptism, if we are destitute of godly fear, if we break God’s covenant, and walk contrary to His commandments, would be contradiction.” May God help us to use this in a correct way!
Published by THE SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards, for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches.
Vol. 6, No. 11 (November 1967)
Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.
What The Northern Presbyterian Church Did To Dr. J. Gresham Machen
(“Exploring Avenues Of Acquaintance And Co-operation”)
By Chalmers W. Alexander
[The Southern Presbyterian Journal 8.11 (1 October 1949): 13-18.]
This is the sixth in the series of articles by Chalmers W. Alexander under the1 heading, “Exploring Avenues of Acquaintance And Co-operation.” This is an informative new series of articles written by one of the most able laymen in the Southern Presbyterian Church.
II: MODERNISM IN THE FOREIGN MISSIONS WORK
In order to understand why Dr. Machen was booted out of the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1936, it is necessary to turn our attention to some events which took place only a few years before that.
In November of 1932, a book entitled Re-Thinking Missions was issued as the report of the “Commission of Appraisal” of the “Laymen’s Inquiry after One Hundred Years.” This report, which was about foreign missions work, was the product of an inter-denominational committee. The Northern Presbyterian Church’s one representative on the Commission of Appraisal was Dr. William P. Merrill, of New York City, a signer of the heretical Auburn Affirmation.
As Dr. Machen pointed out in a 110-page book which will be mentioned presently: “The work of the Commission was financed, to the extent of some half-million dollars, largely by a Modernist layman, Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who in 1918 wrote for the Saturday Evening Post an article which was afterwards circulated in pamphlet form advocating admission to the Church without any profession of belief whatever.”
The Theme Of “Re-Thinking Missions”
Dr. Machen gave this clear analysis of Re-Thinking Missions’ theme and teachings: “The resulting book constitutes from beginning to end an attack upon the historic Christian Faith. It presents as the aim of missions that of seeking truth together with adherents of other religions rather than that of presenting the truth which God has supernaturally recorded in the Bible. ‘The relation between religions,’ it says, ‘must take increasingly hereafter the form of a common search for truth.’ It deprecates the distinction between Christians and non-Christians; it belittles the Bible and inveighs against Christian doctrine; it dismisses the doctrine of eternal punishment as a doctrine antiquated even in Christendom; it presents Jesus as a great Teacher and Example, as Christianity’s ‘highest expression of the religious life,’ but certainly not as very God of very God; it belittles evangelism, definite conversions, open profession of faith in Christ, membership in the Christian Church, and substitutes ‘the dissemination of spiritual influences’ and ‘the permeation of the community with Christian ideals and principles’ for the new birth.”
Re-Thinking Missions revealed clearly that its authors had no conception at all of the finality and the exclusiveness of the Christian Faith as it was revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ when He said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but to me.”
Now two members of the official Board of Foreign Missions of the Northern Presbyterian Church were members of the original Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry, which appointed the Commission of Appraisal which, in turn, produced Re-Thinking Missions. When this book, which was the official report of the Commission, was issued by the Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry, and when it presented a clear-cut view of what missions are and what the Christian religion is, the members of the Northern Presbyterian Church had a right to know whether its Board of Foreign Missions rejected or accepted that view. The Board issued a statement, which was vague in nature, about “the evangelical basis of missions,” on November 21, 1932, after Re-Thinking Missionsappeared. The Board, however, did not let the people know that it considered the book as being hostile to the very roots of the Christian religion, and nothing was done to remove from the Board the two members of it who were members of the original Laymen’s Foreign Missions Inquiry.
Our own Southern Presbyterian denomination, on the other hand, expressed itself in no uncertain terms regarding Re-Thinking Missions. Our General Assembly of 1935 declared it to be “a monumental folly” miscalled Rethinking Missions and stated that “its true title should rather be rejecting missions and crucifying our Lord afresh.”
Re-Thinking Missions did serve one good purpose. It immediately aroused countless thousands of Bible-believing Christians who felt that something should be done at once to stem the fast-rising tide of unbelief in the Christian Church. And the leader among those who shared this feeling was Dr. Machen.
Dr. Machen Proposes An Overture
Accordingly, in 1933, the year following the publication of Re-Thinking Missions, Dr. Machen proposed to the presibytery of which he was a member, the Presbytery of New Brunswick, an Overture which was to be presented to the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church at its next meeting.
This Overture asked the General Assembly to see to it that members of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Northern Presbyterian Church be believers, in the absolute exclusiveness of Christianity and, that they be persons “who are determined to insist upon such verities as the full truthfulness of Scripture, the virgin birth of our Lord, His substitutionary death as a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice, His bodily resurrection and His miracles, as being essential to the Word of God and our Standards and as being necessary to the message which every missionary under our Church shall proclaim.”
The points of doctrine set forth in this Overture were the well-known “Five Points” of doctrine which had been declared as essential by the General Assembly of 1923, and which had been declared not to be essential at all by the heretical Auburn Affirmation in 1924.
Dr. Machen’s 110-Page Book
In connection with this proposed Overture, Dr. Machen very carefully prepared an Argument to accompany it; and this Argument named names and cited specific instances of Modernism in the foreign missions work. Both the Overture and this Argument were published in the form of a book 110 pages in length entitled Modernism and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This book, which was issued in the early part of 1933, was widely distributed, free of charge, throughout the Northern Presbyterian Church.
In its opening pages, Dr. Machen began his Argument by discussing Re-Thinking Missions. And then he called attention to Mrs. Pearl S. Buck.
The Famous Case Of Mrs. Pearl S. Buck
Dr. Machen showed that in the official list of foreign missionaries of the Northern Presbyterian Church there appeared the name of Mrs. J. Lossing Buck. This Mrs. J. Lossing Buck is Mrs. Pearl Sydenstricker Buck, who is the author of The Good Earth and other novels which have made her one of the best known novelists of the present day. She has been awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Prize in literature.
Born in Hillsboro, West Virginia (and not, as is often reported, in the Orient), Mrs. Buck is the daughter of the late Dr. and Mrs. Sydenstricker, who were for many years two of the outstanding foreign missionaries of the Southern Presbyterian Church. A graduate of Randolph-Macon College, she had spent her childhood in China, and in 1917 she had married a missionary, Dr. J. Lossing Buck. Later, in 1935, she was to marry Richard J. Walsh, after she and Dr. Buck were divorced.
Now in 1932 Mrs. Pearl S. Buck was one of the foreign missionaries of the Northern Presbyterian Church, and she had been one of its missionaries for years. Mrs. Buck very clearly stated her views regarding missions in an article entitled “The Laymen’s Mission Report” in The Christian Century for November 23, 1932, and in an article entitled “Is There a Case for Foreign Missions?” in Harper’s Magazine for January, 1933.
In his Argument, Dr. Machen gave an analysis of Mrs. Buck’s views. Regarding the contents of the two articles mentioned, he wrote:
“In the former article, Mrs. Buck expresses the most enthusiastic agreement with the book Re-Thinking Missions, and singles out for special commendation those features of that book which are most obviously and diametrically opposed to the Bible. She says, for example:
‘I have not read merely a report. I have read a unique book, a great book. The book presents a masterly statement of religion in its place in life, and of Christianity in its place in religion. The first three chapters are the finest exposition of religion I have ever read . . .
‘I think this is the only book I have ever read which seems to me to be literally true in its every conclusion … I want every American Christian to read this book. I hope it will be translated into every language.’
Mrs. Buck’s Views On Christianity
“In the article in Harper’s Magazine,” Dr. Machen continued, “Mrs. Buck deals more generally with missions and with the nature of the Christian religion, and what she says in both articles on this subject is in thoroughgoing conflict with the historic Christian Faith. She represents the deity of Christ as a thing accepted by some and rejected by others, but certainly not essential:
‘Some of us (Christians) believe in Christ as our fathers did. To some of us he is still the divine son of God, born of the virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. But to many of us He has ceased to be that . . . Let us face the fact that the old reasons for foreign missions are gone from the minds and hearts of many of us, certainly from those of us who are young.’
She rejoices in the stripping of ‘the magic of superstition’ from Christ, and it seems clear that in the ‘magic of superstition’ she includes the miracles of Christ and the Biblical notion of the salvation which He wrought. . . She rejects directly the Bible doctrine of sin:
‘I am not inclined to blame human beings very much. I do not believe in original sin. I believe that most of us start out wanting to do right and to do good. I believe that most of us keep that desire as long as we live and whatever we do.’
She rejects the old gospel of salvation from sin and even seems to advocate the denial of religious liberty to those who preach that gospel:
‘In the old days it was plain enough. Our forefathers ‘believed sincerely in a magic religion. They believed simply and plainly that all who did not hear the gospel, as they called it, were damned, and every soul to whom they preached received in that moment the chance for salvation from that hell. Though heard but for a single moment, the preacher gave that soul the opportunity of a choice for eternity. If the soul paid no heed or did not believe, the preacher could not take the responsibility. He was absolved. There are those who still believe this, and if they sincerely believe, I honor that sincerity, though I cannot share the belief. I agree with the Chinese who feel their people should be protected from such superstition.’
Needless to say, Mrs. Buck agrees fully with Re-Thinking Missions in belittling preaching over against what she regards—quite falsely—as living the Christian life:
‘Above all, then, let the spirit of Christ be manifested by mode of life rather than by preaching. I am wearied unto death with this preaching. It deadens all thought, confuses all issues, it is producing in China at least, a horde of hypocrites, and in the theological seminaries a body of Chinese ministers which makes one despair for the future, because they are learning to preach about Christianity rather than how to live the Christian life.’
It is needless to say, further, that this estimate of preaching is entirely contrary to that which is taught in the Word of God.
“One thing is certainly to be said for Mrs. Buck. She is admirably clear. Her utterances are as plain as the utterances of our Board of Foreign Missions are muddled. There is nothing vague or undecided about them. She has let it be known exactly where she stands. She is opposed to the old gospel and is not afraid to say so in the presence of all the world . . .
Mrs. Buck And The Foreign Missions Board
“Mrs. Buck’s views about missions have obviously not been formed overnight. She herself intimates very plainly that the book Re-Thinking Missions only expresses views which she has already held. Yet she has been allowed to continue in the foreign field by a Board which is charged with the sacred duty of seeing that its mission work is in accordance with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church and with the Word of God. Could she have done so if the Board had not been grossly neglectful of its duty?
“Moreover, there is not the slightest likelihood that Mrs. Buck stands alone in her destructive views. Her distinguished talents have merely allowed those views to become widely audible in her case. It is altogether probably that there are many like her among the missionaries under our Board. Rev. John Clover Monsma (in his booklet, The Foreign Missionary Situation in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., February, 1933 . . . ) is quite justified in saying:
Today the Board is not in a position to guarantee our church members that there are not scores upon scores of other ‘Mrs. Bucks’ in the field, at different stages of apostacy and doctrinal revolution’.”
As a result of the pressure which Dr. Machen and other Bible-believing Christians had built up, Mrs. Buck handed in her resignation as a missionary to the Board of Foreign Missions. And she insisted that the Board accept it when the Board seemed reluctant to do so. It is highly provable that, except for the great publicity given to her unsound views by Dr. Machen, Mrs. Buck could have continued to serve indefinitely as a foreign missionary of the Northern Presbyterian Church had she so desired.
When the Board of Foreign Missions finally accepted her resignation, it announced that it did so “with regrets!”
The Candidate Secretary Of The Foreign Missions Board
Dr. Machen, in his Argument, then called attention to the fact that the Candidate Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Northern Presbyterian Church was a signer of the heretical Auburn Affirmation. To this Candidate Secretary is entrusted the delicate task of interviewing candidates for the foreign missions field and of encouraging or discouraging them in their high ambition. There is no agent of the Church who ought to be more completely clear as to what the Church’s message is than the occupant of that position. And yet the minister who was occupying that position had signed a formal document erasing the virgin birth and four other great verities of the Faith from the essential message which the Church is proclaiming in the world!
In commenting on this, Dr. Machen wrote: “Serious, however, though the presence of a signer of the Auburn Affirmation in the position of Candidate Secretary is in itself, it is far more serious in what it indicates as to the principles of the Board as a whole. A Board (of Foreign Missions) which in the face of criticism, after the issue has been plainly pointed out to it, can retain a signer of the Auburn Affirmation in such a position is an agency which has made its attitude known only too well regarding the great issue between Modernism and indifferentism, on the one hand, and Biblical Christianity on the other. Certainly it is not an agency which deserves the confidence of those members of the Church which adopt the view of Christian missions which is taught in the Word of God.”
Modernism In The Missions Work In China
Now, very briefly, let us consider some of the many evidences of Modernism in the China mission field which Dr. Machen pointed out in the Argument contained in his 110-page book entitled Modernism and The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. From page 65 to page 110 inclusive in his book, Dr. Machen showed in detail the evidence with regard to Modernism in China, in enterprises supported in part or in whole by the Board of Foreign Missions of the Northern Presbyterian Church, or with which that Board was connected.
In explanation of this evidence, it should be noted, the Yenching University at Peiping, the National Christian Council and the Church of Christ in China, and the Christian Literature Society all got support from the Board of Foreign Missions of the Northern Presbyterian Church. In answer to an inquiry from Dr. Machen, Chancellor Arie Kok of the Netherlands Legation in Peiping and Dr. Albert B. Dodd, Professor in the North China Theological Seminary, who was himself a missionary of the Northern Presbyterian Church, gave data fresh from the China mission field.
Testimony Of Dr. Albert B. Dodd
Dr. Dodd stated: “The North China American School is a union school for missionary children in which our Board (of Foreign Missions) is financially interested. Quite a number of us have to send our children to Korea because of the ‘modernism’ in all the schools provided by our Board in China.”
Then Dr. Dodd presented reviews of certain books published by the Christian Literature Society (which got financial support from the Foreign Missions Board of the Northern Presbyterian Church), showing their unsound teachings. A glance at one of the many books he mentioned will give an indication of the type of unbelief to which he objected. A volume entitled Fundamentals of the Christian Religion was an outline for Group Study, arranged by T. R. Glover, and prepared in Chinese; it was issued in 1932 by the Christian Literature Society. This book said, among other things:
“To say that Christ’s blood means His death and that on account of that death God draws near to men does violence to human reason . . . Hence when we think of the death of Jesus, a thousand times ten thousand times (I exhort you) do not think that Jesus was an offering of sacrifice.”
Dr. Dodd also remarked, in a list of books on which he offered brief comments: “A book of Sherwood Eddy’s on ‘Sex and Youth’ has been translated into Chinese by some other society but I notice its sale is promoted, in connection with a household library, both by the C.L.S. (Christian Literature Society) and the Church of Christ in China” (both of which were supported partly by Northern Presbyterian missions funds through the Board).
“Other noted ‘Modernists’ whose works are published by the C.L.S. are Fosdick and Kagawa,” Dr. Dodd continued. “A recent book of the latter so published is on the religious education of children. As usual in his books he therein freely expresses his convictions that the Old Testament has a large legendary element which is therefore historically untrustworthy.”
Testimony Of Chancellor Arie Kok
Chancellor Kok, of the Netherlands Legation in Peiping, in writing of Modernism in the Northern Presbyterian missions work in China, stated: “More than twenty years of close observation in different parts of China have established the fact beyond any shadow of a doubt that all types of Presbyterian missionaries ranging from strong conservatives to rank modernists have arrived on the field, being accepted and sent out by the Board (of Foreign Missions)”.
In the January-March 1932 issue of “The China Fundamentalist,” published in Shanghai, Chancellor Kok wrote an article about the latest campaign in China of Dr. Sherwood Eddy, “a well known modernist, socialist, advocate of birth control and Soviet sympathizer,” and he sent Dr. Machen a copy of that article.
In this article Chancellor Kok had remarked: “The Y.M.C.A. platforms everywhere were, of course, open to him (Dr. Eddy) . . . Representatives of other national organizations, in particular the National Christian Council of China, have been co-operating whole-heartedly … It goes without saying that liberal missionary institutions of the Yenching University type were most eager to have him address their student body” (the National Christian Council of China and Yenching University received financial support from the Northern Presbyterian Church Board of Foreign Missions).
“Who,’ continued Chancellor Kok, “is Dr. Eddy? He is best known as a Y.M.C.A. man . . . From the great mass of material which throws light on Dr. Eddy’s religious and other views, it is only possible to select a few of the most striking passages:
‘Too long has the Bible been set up as a text book of law, science and everything else, and Christians have paid a bitter price for trying to keep it as such,’ declared Sherwood Eddy … to three thousand students and others meeting at … church. ‘There has been a conspiracy of silence,’ he declared. ‘If you try to make that book infallible in all matters the world is doomed. I won’t have thousands of young people lose their faith because it is demanded that they accept some antiquated dogma derived from it … Such controversial matters as the virgin birth, blood atonement, bodily resurrection can well be dispensed with. They may be believed in or discredited individually, and no difference made.’
“The modernists’ strongholds are the schools,” Chancellor Kok narrated, “Here they are entrenched and it is here that children of the Chinese Christians and outsiders are initiated into the first principles of Modernism. The results are often most disastrous . . . The plain undeniable fact is that the Yengching University has been steadily drifting away towards the extreme left of theological thought, a point where it stands today … In the years 1926 and 1927 it was known in Peiping that the Yenching University harboured teachers, who were in full sympathy with the Soviet Revolution, and who advocated Soviet ideas among the students. Propaganda was carried on in an underhand way
until, in December, 1927, they came out in the open by publishing a monthly paper . . . The Editors were actually living on the grounds of the Yenching University, where the paper was both edited and issued. Only the printing was done on the outside.”
Dr. Machen’s Overture And The General Assembly
By means of his Overture and the Argument supporting it, extracts from which we have examined, it is clear that Modernism was flourishing in the Foreign Mission Board’s activities, and Dr. Machen made this fact widely known before he presented his Overture to the Presbytery of New Brunswick in the early part of 1933.
Then Dr. Machen introduced into that Presbytery his Overture supported by his carefully documented Argument. What did the Presbytery do with his Overture? After listening to Dr. Machen speak at great length in support of his Overture, that Presbytery by a large majority refused to send it to the General Assembly!
But from other Presbyteries his Overture reached the General Assembly of 1933, where it was referred to the General Assembly’s Standing Committee on Foreign Missions. What did the Standing Committee on Foreign Missions do, after permitting Dr. Machen to present his evidence before it at great length? By a vote of 43 to 2, that Committee reported unfavorably on the Overture, and expressed its confidence in the Board of Foreign Missions! By an almost unanimous vote the General Assembly approved that Committee’s report!
Thus it was clearly called to the attention of the General Assembly that Modernism was being supported in the mission work of the Board of Foreign Missions, and the General Assembly refused to do anything at all about the matter!
The Independent Board For Presbyterian Foreign Missions Is Organized
After it had become clear that the General Assembly did not intend to correct the deplorable situation in the foreign missions work, Dr. Machen and others of like mind set about at the close of 1933 to organize an Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. They declared that it would support only missionaries who were fully orthodox in their beliefs and that it would lend support to no missionary enterprise which tolerated Modernism.
Here, at last, was an agency through which Bible-believing Christians in the Northern Presbyterian Church could give their funds with an untroubled mind. They knew that none of the money given through this new Independent Board would ever be used to help Modernism flourish in the foreign missions field.
Now what was the reaction of the Northern Presbyterian Church to the establishing of this new Independent Board?
The answer to that question is a very simple one: because of that new Mission Board the Northern Presbyterian Church kicked Dr. Machen out of its ministry!
(Concluded in the Next Issue)
Lardner Wilson Moore was born on May 20, 1898, in Osaka, Japan. His father was the Rev. John Wallace Moore and his mother, Kate (Boude) Moore. His parents were among the very first Protestant missionaries to serve in Japan.
Lardener received his collegiate education at Austin College, in Texas, earning his BA there in 1918 and an MA in 1919. He then pursued his preparation for ministry at Union Theological Seminary, in Richmond, Virginia, where he earned his Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1922.
Upon graduation from Seminary, Lardner then married Grace Eagleton, in Sherman, Texas on July 6, 1922. To this marriage, three children were born, including George Eagleton, John Wallace and Robert Wilson.
Moore was licensed and ordained on September 15, 1921 under the authority of Durant Presbytery (PCUS), being installed as a pastor of the PCUS church in Caddo, Oklahoma. Additionally, he served as Stated Supply for a smaller Presbyterian church in Caney, Oklahoma. These posts he held from 1922-1924. [Returning to the States from Japan in 1942, Rev. Moore was able to return to Caddo to conduct the funeral of a member of his former church]
But his heart was set on foreign service and in 1924 he began his career as a foreign missionary to Japan, remaining there until 1968. A term of service in the US Army, from 1943 – 1947 had interrupted his work in Japan. In that military service, he was commissioned to oversee the translation work of a core group of Japanese Americans. At the conclusion of the War, he also served as a language arbiter during the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
In the years following the War, he became president of Shikoku Christian College in Zentsuji, Japan, serving in that post from 1950 – 1957.
In 1968, Rev. Moore was honorably retired, and returning the United States, went on to serve as Stated Supply at a Presbyterian church in Antlers, Oklahoma, from 1969 to 1972. It was in 1973 that he was received by the PCA’s Texas Presbytery. Later, on October 31, 1981 he transferred his credentials into the OPC.
Rev. Moore died peacefully in his sleep on December 28, 1987, within a few months of his 90th birthday.
Words to Live By:
The Lord gifts all of us differently. To some, He gives a great facility with languages, thus equipping them to be particularly useful in the work of missions. If you know someone with such gifting, do all you can to help them along their way in serving the Lord. More than anything, pray for them, even now, long before they ever reach the mission field. Pray that the Lord will prepare them and that He will use them to advance His kingdom. Pray that they will stand strong in the Lord, firmly anchored in Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior.
For Further Study:
For more insight into Major Lardner W. Moore’s work as language arbiter with the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, click here. [See under #8. Language Arbiter]
Today’s post is an excerpt from a longer article written several years ago for the PCA Historical Center by Dr. Barry Waugh.
The Civil War has been described as the war of brother against brother and father against son and this was especially true in the case of Robert J. Breckinridge and his family. As the war progressed and victory seemed to be coming to the Union, Kentucky turned more of its support to the south because of Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves. This conflict within Kentucky was reflected among Robert’s descendants and kin. His sons, Robert Jr. and Willie, took sides with the southern cause against their father. Issa Breckinridge, Willie’s wife, was particularly angry with Robert and his support of the north, and in protest, she would not let him see two of their newest children until Willie convinced her to do so in 1867. Theophilus Steele, the husband of Robert’s daughter, Sophonisba, donned Confederate gray and rode with John Hunt Morgan. It is likely that Robert’s intervention with the Union Army resulted in Edwin M. Stanton’s imprisoning Theophilus as a prisoner of war rather than executing him as a guerilla raider when he was captured by Union forces. Robert’s nephew, John C. Breckinridge, became a southern Democratic candidate for the presidency when the pro-slavery forces were the minority at the 1860 Democratic National Convention that nominated Stephen A. Douglas to run against Lincoln. Despite these kin turning against R. J., his sons Joseph and Charles along with three sons-in-law fought with Lincoln’s forces.
The tensions Robert faced within Kentucky increased when he was nominated to the Baltimore convention that re-nominated Lincoln in 1864, and he made a speech at the convention denouncing the anti-union position of many Kentuckians. James Klotter notes that James G. Blaine, who had just entered the U. S. House of Representatives in 1863, commented that Breckinridge’s appearance was strong and “patriarchal” and that his speech was the most inspiring of the convention. The speech was against slavery and Blaine’s praise may reflect his sectional perspective just as a lady from Charleston had once shown her southern sympathies in her assessment of Breckinridge’s preaching. Lincoln managed to carry Kentucky in 1864 with the smallest margin of victory achieved by any of the states voting for his return to office.
The closing years of Breckinridge’s life included another marriage after eight years as a widower. His third wife was Margaret Faulkner White, whom he married on November 5, 1868. As age slowed Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, he left his professorship at Danville in December 1869 and he died in Danville on December 27, 1871 after an extended illness. Breckinridge’s life and work had been tumultuous and colorful. He had survived as a vocal opponent of slavery in Kentucky, he had been a leader of the Old School in its ejection of the New School, he had improved the quality and quantity of Kentucky education, and he had worked to bring ministerial education to the rough Kentucky frontier at Danville Seminary.
Just as R. J. Breckinridge came from a notable ancestry, his family and descendants also enjoyed prominence. Robert and his first wife, Ann Sophonisba, had eleven children together, six girls and five boys. One daughter, Mary Cabell, married William Warfield in 1848 and on November 5, 1851, Benjamin Breckinridge was born. B. B. Warfield would mature in Kentucky and be educated for the ministry at Princeton Seminary. Warfield then served as a professor at Western Theological Seminary from 1878 to 1886 when he moved to Princeton to become the Professor of Theology at the seminary and remained there until his death on February 16, 1921. William “Willie” Campbell Preston Breckinridge, married a Kentuckian, Lucretia Clay, the granddaughter of Henry Clay, and he, like Henry Clay, worked in politics. Willie served in congress from 1884 to 1892. Robert’s second wife, Virginia Hart Shelby, had been married to Alfred Shelby, who was the son of Isaac Shelby, Kentucky’s first governor (1792-1796) as well as the fifth (1812-1816). Isaac had also fought in the Revolutionary War and commanded the troops that defeated the British at the battle at King’s Mountain, North Carolina.
Words to Live By:
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it:and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”—Matthew 10:34-39, KJV.
One Remarkable Woman for Christ and His Cause
by Rev. David T Myers
Most obituaries in our daily newspapers are small and concise, with some perhaps going on for several paragraphs. What would you readers assume if you read as this author did, an obituary which went on for nine pages, and each page was a double column? Surely, any reader would assume that the person who had passed away was recognized by both church and society as a noteworthy person. And that would be true, especially true of our subject today. Her name was Sarah Ralston.
You say that you don’t recognize the name. This writer did neither when he read her historical obituary. But a description of her person and work for the gospel and society at large, to say nothing of the visible church, well, we are the forgetful ones.
Sarah Ralston went to be with the Lord on this day, December 26, 1820. She was the wife of Robert Ralston, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And yes, that was an influential relationship, one of wealth, we could even say. She was the mother of twelve children, with eleven of them (and some say ten children) surviving their birth. Oh yes, all of them were members and covenant children of Second Presbyterian Church in that eastern city of Pennsylvania.
Her testimony for the Lord went beyond family. At first, she gave loving leadership and care for her numerous offspring. But as the oldest children, especially her girls, became older, they were able to help out in caring for the family, God’s Spirit gave her a loving affection for others outside the family in need of help, both physical and spiritual.
And so in that sense, we might speak of her wider family, which included those involved with The Female Bible Society of Philadelphia, organized first in 1814. Recognizing that God’s Word was essential for sound doctrine and life, they distributed Bibles to institutions in the town. Sarah Ralston was its president.
Her service for Christ was extended to The Orphans Asylum with the purchase and building of a house to care for those in need of care, both physical as well as spiritual. This was accomplished in 1814 too, and Mrs. Ralston was its first director.
An Indigent and Single Woman’s Society was established next in 1817 to provide for those who needed help. with who else, but Mrs Ralston again providing leadership.
In 1820, God saw fit to remove from this earth this remarkable woman. What spiritual fruit was added to God’s kingdom may be only found out on Judgment Day.
Words to Live By:
There was a paragraph at the close of the obituary by the author, the Rev. J.J. Janeway, which stated the following. It read, “Every good work that is done in faith will be noticed and rewarded by the Judge of quick and dead, in the final day. But no good work, nor all the good works of the greatest saint that ever lived, could constitute the ground of his acceptance before God. Here all must stand on the same level, all must be indebted for this necessary blessing to the finished righteousness of Jesus Christ. Mrs. Ralston was too well acquainted with the gospel of our blessed Savior, to depend for justification on any works of mercy she had done. She felt herself to be a sinner, like others, who needed the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Christ. On this rock was built all her hopes, not on the quicksand of human merit.”
Tell Me the Old, Old Story —
Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.
Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David.
In order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.
While they were there the days were completed for her to give birth.
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.
And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.
But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
This will be a sign for you; you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying
“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased:
When the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds began saying to one another, “Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this things that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.”
So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger.
When they had seen this, they made known the statement which had been told them about this Child.
And all who hear it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds.
But Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart.
The shepherds went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them.
The Lady Who Saved Christmas
by David T. Myers
For our post today, we go away from the remembrance of some Presbyterian and Reformed person, place, and event to think on The Lady Who Saved Christmas. This title was taken from a commentary of the Rev. Dale Ralph Davis on the Old Testament History book, Second Kings, published by Christian Focus, of Ross-shire, Scotland, United Kingdom. And yes, permission was sought and given by both the author and the publisher to quote portions for this day’s post.
Dale Ralph Davis writes on page 159 that “God made the coming of his kingdom – and therefore of Christmas – depend on a promise he made, and he placed that promise, openly exposed, in all the turbulence and upheaval of human history. Sometimes we call that promise the Davidic covenant, as when Yahweh assured David ‘Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.’ (2 Samuel 7:16) Hence David’s line of kings, the ‘Davidic pipeline’, would never bite the dust, and, eventually, the future David, the messianic King, would bring this line to its awesome climax. The kingdom of Israel divided, however, and David’s line reigned over a postage-stamp sized kingdom called Judah, and there the days came about 840 BC when it looked like there wouldn’t ever be any Christmas and history would be Messiah-less.”
The author goes on in this chapter to describe the rampage of Queen Athaliah’s mystery of murder on Judah’s royal family, seeking to destroy all the royal seed of David’s line. She was successful with the exception of a baby named Joash, who with his caregiver, was rescued by the wife of the high priest, a courageous woman named Jehosheba. It is all recorded in 2 Kings 11:1 – 3 (read). The high priest’s stole the infant out of the palace and relocated him in a bedroom in the house of the Lord, thus preserving this last remaining royal seed. Seven years later, he was placed on the throne of Judah to reign with the help of a godly counselor. Here truly is the Lady Who Saved Christmas.
We learn first, The Huge Significance of Unsung Servants. I mean, who has ever heard of Jehosheba before? She is not mentioned again in Scripture. The promise of God to keep David’s line is hanging by a thread, and up steps this priest’s wife. The LORD could have sent twelve legions of angels to save the royal line, but He had Jehosheba in place at the right time and the right place.
Maybe no one has heard of you, dear reader. You, as a Christian, are in a small town, or small church. There may not be many who cheer you on in the Lord’s work. But God takes notice. As a Christian parent, Dale Ralph Davis noted on page 173, “you have responsibility over the church in your house, where you are meant to serve as prophet, priest, and king. As prophet you teach the word of God to your children, as priest you intercede and wrestle in prayer for t hem, and as king you rule over them with proper discipline and protection. . . . Don’t tell me your kingdom service doesn’t matter.”
In addition, Dale Ralph Davis sees The Subversive Presence of Yahweh’s Kingdom in verse 3 of Second Kings 11, which tells us that Joash was with Jehosheba for six years when the wicked queen was ruling over the land. There is the illegitimate kingdom of Athaliah and the secret existence of the true king, Joash, in God’s kingdom with Jehosheba. Queen Athaliah never even imagines that there is a potential king hidden away in the temple.
We have another instance of this same situation in Philippians 4:22. Paul is giving his greetings and mentions that even the saints of “Caesar’s household” greets the readers of the inspired letter. Saints in Caesar’s household? We are not given their names by the apostle for wise reasons, but God, the true emperor, has his servants even at this pivotal location. As Dale Davis comments, “in one sense, Caesar is the lord, but actually they have begun to serve a different Lord.” (p. 175)
Last, we must try to See God’s Hand at Work Long Before Luke 2. If Athaliah had had her way, as Dr. Davis comments on pg 180, “there would’ve been no angels or shepherds or swaddling clothes or good news of great joy.” As a result of Johosheba’s intervention, David’s line continued through Joash, and 850 years later, Jesus was born in Bethlehem as a descendant of David and yes, Joash, after the flesh, to save His people from their sins.
Words to Live By:
On this evening, some, if not many of you, will attend a Christmas eve celebration at your Presbyterian church. It is a traditional service, with the singing of Christmas carols and the simple retelling of the Christmas story. Some congregations will light candles at the close, and sing Silent Night. Others may sing enthusiastically “Go, Tell it on the Mountain, that Jesus Christ is born,” by the lights of the many candles filling the church sanctuary. It will be a joyous time of worship.
Dear Reader: With Christmas falling on the Lord’s Day, resist the temptation to stay home with your family from your church worship, but instead make it a part of your Christmas Day. Keep Christ in Christmas is more than a slogan. Make it a practical part of your Christmas holiday!
In the midst of these days of trouble, we are called by God peace and concord.
STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn
Q. 66. What is the reason annexed to th fifth commandment?
A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment is a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory, and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.
Scripture References: Ephesians 6:2-3; I Peter 3:10.
1. What type of “good is this commandment speaking of, temporal or spiritual?
This commandment is speaking of temporal good, with a stipulation.
2. What is this stipulation?
The stipulation is that it must be to the glory of God. For the believer in Christ, whatever is good must be used for His glory.
3. What kind of temporal good is promised here?
The good promised here is long life and prosperity.
4. What is this “long life”?
It is not simply a matter of living long upon this earth but it is a long life of living for a reason—the glory of God. It is real living, living with a purpose and a blessing.
- What kind of prosperity is promised?
The prosperity promised is a prosperity that must be seen within the framework of the glory of God. Sometimes it will be hard for the believer to understand how his lot might be called prosperity, but if through it God is glorified, it is for the believer’s own good and some day he will understand why God took him through what the world would never label “prosperity”.
- Does this mean that all believers in Christ will have long life and prosperity?
No, only those believers who do not break this fifth commandment. They might find themselves in the position of the superior, or the inferior, or the equal. But whatever their position they must fulfill it as they should if they would receive the rewards spoken of here.
- Why is the fifth commandment the first commandment with promise?
It is called this because it is the first commandment of the second table, and the only commandment in it that has a promise attached to it.
PEACE AND CONCORD.
We are living in the midst of an age where trouble seems to be the order of the day. We hear of wars, arguments, riots, evils being practiced on fellow men and we should be asking ourselves the question: What can I do as a Christian? The answer to what we can do must be based on principles. We must act but we must act according to the teaching of The Blessed Book. In the midst of this age, what does The Word say?
Our Question from the Catechism has a lot to say regarding this age in which we live. Yet we are forgetting this important teaching, we are forgetting that there are such things as superiors and inferiors and both have responsibilities. We are forgetting that we can not, dare not, bypass the teaching of Scripture in any realm. In I Peter 2 and 3 we find many instructions regarding this matter of honoring our father and mother—or, as has been expressed in the foregoing, our relationships to others whether we are superiors or inferiors or equals—and it would do well for us to take heed to what Peter says. We should remember that Peter is God’s spokesman and such that should end the matter. We should remember that the instructions given by Peter are pertinent for today in spite of our likes and dislikes.
Peter concludes his counsel by stating: “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another. . . .” He tells us that we should show love, we should be pitiful and courteous. He tells us we should not fight back. He tells us that we should be careful that our tongues do not speak evil. He tells us that we should seek and pursue after peace. Why does he tell us these things? Why is it necessary for us to know them? It comes to us in The Word because Peter, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, was being consistent with the rest of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is always teaching us that we have responsibilities in this world, some of us as superiors and some of us as inferiors. But our responsibilities toward one another are ever present and we can never bypass them. This is true of those who are not saved but it is even more true of those who have called upon Christ as Saviour and Lord of their lives.
In the midst of these days of trouble, we are called by God peace and concord. We must, by His grace, be willing to follow the teaching of The Word in all areas—that is if we would love life and see good days (I Peter 3:10).
Published by The Sword and Shield, Inc.
Vol. 4, No. 60 (December 1965)
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, editor
This continues our series on the Auburn Affirmation and its after-effects, as told by Chalmers W. Alexander, a lawyer and ruling elder at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS. These next several parts of the series specifically concern Dr. J. Gresham Machen.
What The Northern Presbyterian Church Did To Dr. J. Gresham Machen
(“Exploring Avenues Of Acquaintance And Co-operation”)
By Chalmers W. Alexander, Jackson, MS
[excerpted from The Southern Presbyterian Journal 8.10 (15 September 1949): 6-10.]
In 1936 Dr. J. Gresham Machen (pronounced “may chin”) was kicked out of the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church.
On January 1, 1937 Dr. Machen died of lobar pneumonia, after an illness of only four days, in Bismark, North Dakota, while on a preaching tour for the Lord Jesus Christ. At the time of his death he was no longer a minister in, or a member of, the Northern Presbyterian Church.
Dr. Machen was fifty-five years old, and at the height of his intellectual powers, when he died. He had never married, and he left an estate estimated at $175,000.00.
What H. L. Mencken Said
Dr. Machen’s sudden death evoked comments by newspaper and church paper commentators all over America, and from Christians and non-Christians alike.
What Dr. Machen had fought for, and what his opponents had been doing in recent years in the Northern Presbyterian Church which had aroused his opposition, were very clearly summarized, strange to say, by H. L. Mencken. H. L. Mencken has never professed to be a Christian, and no one has ever accused him of being very reverent in matters of religion. But no one can deny that he has a keen, incisive mind, and that he is one of America’s best known critics. Writing in the January 18, 1937 issue of the Baltimore Evening Sun, of which he himself was at one time the Editor, he remarked (the emphasis in the quotation is added):
“The Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., who died out in North Dakota on New Year’s Day, got, on the whole, a bad press while he lived, and even his obituaries did much less than justice to him. To newspaper reporters, as to other antinomians (those not binding themselves by any moral law), a combat between Christians over a matter of Dogma (or doctrine) is essentially a comic affair, and in consequence Dr. Machen’s heroic struggles to save Calvinism in the Republic were usually depicted in ribald, or, at all events, in somewhat skeptical terms . . . But he was actually a man of great learning and what is more, of sharp intelligence . . . He saw clearly that the only effects that could follow diluting and polluting Christianity in the modernist manner would be its complete abandonment and ruin. Either it was true or it was not true. If, as he believed, it was true, then there could be no compromise with persons who sought to whittle away its essential postulates, however respectable their motives.
“Thus he fell out with the reformers who have been trying, in late years, to convert the Presbyterian Church into a kind of literary and social club, devoted vaguely to good works . . . His one and only purpose was to hold it resolutely to what he conceived to be the true faith. When that enterprise met with opposition he fought vigorously, and though he lost in the end and was forced out of Princeton it must be manifest that he marched off to Philadelphia with all the honors of war.
“My interest in Dr. Machen while he lived, though it was large, was not personal, for I never had the honor of meeting him . . . Though I could not yield to his reasoning I could at least admire, and did greatly admire, his remarkable clarity and cogency as an apologist, allowing him his primary assumptions.
“These assumptions were also made, at least in theory, by his opponents, and thereby he had them by the ear. Claiming to be Christians as he was, and of Calvinish persuasion, they endeavored fatuously to get rid of all the inescapable implications of their position. On the one hand they sought to retain membership in the fellowship of the faithful, but on the other hand they presumed to repeal and re-enact with amendments the body of doctrine on which the fellowship rested. In particular, they essayed to overhaul the scriptural authority which lay at the bottom of the whole matter, retaining what coincided with their private notions and rejecting whatever upset them.
“Upon this contumacy Dr. Machen fell with loud shouts of alarm. He denied absolutely that anyone had a right to revise and sophisticate Holy Writ. Either it was the Word of God or it was not the Word of God, and if it was, then it was equally authoritative in all its details, and had to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Anyone was free to reject it, but no one was free to mutilate it or to read things into it that were not there. Thus the issue with the Modernists was clearly joined, and Dr. Machen argued them quite out of court, and sent them scurrying back to their literary and sociological ‘Kaffee-klatsche’ (Coffee-and-chatter gatherings) . . .
“It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion, if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is, on the contrary, a corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. Its inherent improbabilities are not sources of weakness to it, but of strength. It is potent in a man in proportion as he is willing to reject all overt evidences, and accept its fundamental postulates, however improvable they may be by secular means, as massive and incontrovertible facts.
hese postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, ‘education,’ or osteopathy.
“That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty of psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. They may be good people, and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something else again — in Henrik Ibsen’s phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mud-upbringing. Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed — but he was undoubtedly right.”
Dr. Machen Had Voluntarily Left Princeton Theological Seminary
When Princeton Theological Seminary was reorganized in 1929, Dr. Machen had resigned his position on its faculty as a vigorous protest against the reorganization. Other members of the faculty who similarly had resigned were Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D., probably the world’s greatest Old Testament scholar at that time, and Dr. Oswald T. Allis, Ph.D., who is one of America’s most outstanding Old Testament scholars today, and Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Ph.D., who is now recognized as one of the country’s leading Professors of Apologetics.
These four unusually great professors, together with other Christians of like mind, then proceeded to found Westminster Theological Seminary, at Philadelphia, in the autumn of 1929. They did this because they were firmly convinced that the reorganization of Princeton Theological Seminary would result in changes being made in its hitherto consistently and thoroughly orthodox position in theology.
And, it might be added, since its reorganization in 1929, signers of the heretical Auburn Affirmation have served on the Board of Trustees of Princeton Theological Seminary and one Auburn Affirmationist has taught there as visiting Professor of Homiletics. And in addition, such men as Dr. Emil Brunner, who specifically rejects belief in the virgin birth of Christ and who does not believe in the full inspiration of the Holy Bible but who nevertheless taught as Professor of Systematic Theology in the Seminary during the school year 1938-39, have also taught there.
Dr. Machen’s Background
Dr. Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 28, 1881. He was from a Southern Presbyterian family. His father and brother were distinguished lawyers, and both were Southern Presbyterian elders. Judge Gresham, his grandfather, was for many years one of the leading citizens of Macon, Ga., and in addition to being an elder in the First Presbyterian Church there he also contributed heavily to the Tattnall Square Presbyterian Church of that city.
Dr. Machen received his A.B. degree from Johns Hopkins University, and after one more year in that institution, as a graduate student in Greek (under B. L. Gildersleeve), he received his M.A. from Princeton University and his B.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. Then he studied abroad for a year, in the Universities of Marburg and Goettingen, both in Germany.
In 1906 he joined the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary and, except for an interval of some fourteen months during which he was engaged in Y.M.C.A. work in Prance and Belgium in World War I, he continued to teach New Testament in that Seminary until its reorganization in 1929. From 1929 until his death, Dr. Machen was Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary.
Dr. Machen was the James Sprunt Lecturer at our Union Theological Seminary, at Richmond, in 1921, and he was the Thomas Smyth Lecturer at our Columbia Theological Seminary, at Decatur, in 1927.
Dr. Machen As A Man
As H. L. Mencken stated, Dr. Machen got, on the whole, a bad press while he lived. This was because, to a very large extent, he was much spoken against by those whom he had opposed in the Northern Presbyterian Church. As one of the church papers in that denomination once remarked: “We have no hesitation in saying that for the most part he was a victim of grave as well as wide-spread abuse and misrepresentation.”
What kind of man was Dr. Machen? What was he like personally?
From various news items and comments written at the time of his death a true picture of Dr. Machen emerges.
For instance, the Boston Evening Transcript remarked: “Newspaper readers and the uninformed opponents of Dr. Machen within has own household have fashioned in their minds a characterization of the man which is in fact a caricature. J. Gresham Machen was a gentleman. That is the word. Born of an excellent family of the South, in Baltimore, Machen was a Christian after the Presbyterian order. And that means living, doctrinal, cultured and spiritual faith.”
The Editor of Christianity Today, one of the sound church papers in the Northern Presbyterian Church, said: “In the death of J. Gresham Machen the Christian religion has lost one of its ablest and finest representatives. Of all those with whom we have been privileged to associate, he was the most like what we conceive Paul (apart from special supernatural equipment) to have been. In him breadth and power of thought were combined with simplicity of faith, humility of spirit, great courage and unlimited readiness to spend and be spent in the service of his Lord.”
Across the Atlantic, in The British Weekly, the following statement appeared: “The death, at the age of fifty-five, of Dr. Machen will have been sincerely lamented by all the churches of the United States. Dr. Machen was a strong and resolute man, who from the beginning of his theological career at Princeton took an unyielding attitude to all that goes by the name of Modernism. It sometimes seemed to ourselves that Dr. Machen’s attitude was made all the harder by the falling away from him of former friends. We had the privilege of something deeper than a casual acquaintance with Dr. Machen. We have met few men of his rank and scholarship who have so impressed us with a grave, deep sense of God. Nothing of the kind is more memorable in our experience than the lectures on ‘Galatians’ which we heard from him in Grove City. He was for those with whom he could be at ease one of the most charming of men.”
he Editor of The Banner, of the Christian Reformed Church, wrote: “The cause of orthodoxy has lost its most prominent champion in our country, the church of Christ a truly great reformer, the Presbyterian Church of America its foremost member and leader, the students of Westminster Seminary a beloved teacher . . . We knew him to be, not the pugnacious individual which his enemies imagined or pretended he was, but a most gentle and gracious Christian, a man with a tender and loving heart.”
Dr. Maitland Alexander, a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church and, until its reorganization in 1929, the President of the Board of Directors of Princeton Theological Seminary, stated: “Then Dr. Machen was a humble Christian. I do not know any man that I have ever known that was as truly humble before his God as he was. He was a man of principle; of course he was a man of intense Bible study. He was a man who gave his heart wholly and unreservedly to the Lord Jesus Christ.”
And, it is indeed strange to relate, Dr. William P. Merrill, of New York City, one of the Northern Presbyterian ministers who signed the heretical Auburn Affirmation, and who was a member of the “Commission of Appraisal” which in 1932 issued that un-Christian book entitled “Re-Thinking Missions” (which will be mentioned later in this article), wrote in the Modernist church paper, The Presbyterian Tribune: “In a very true sense he gave his life for what he believed. In an age when such firmness is far too rare, when goodwill and tolerance too easily slip into indifference, all real lovers of truth and rights should feel above all a very real respect for so sturdy a soul. While others, who shared his convictions, temporized and compromised when the crucial test came, he held firm and paid the price; and we honor him as a steadfast example of faithfulness even unto death.”
In the summer of 1933 Dr. Machen was once a dinner guest in my house in Jackson, Mississippi. He was one of the most charming and delightful Christian gentlemen with whom it was ever my privilege to be associated.
Dr. Machen As A Scholar
At the time of his death in 1937, Dr. Machen was probably the greatest New Testament scholar in the entire world.
Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church, and the nationally-known Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, stated: “He was the greatest theologian and defender of the Christian faith that the church of our day has produced. More than any other man of our generation, Dr. Machen tore mask from the face of unbelief which parades under the name of Modernism in the Christian Church . . . Like Paul he kept the faith delivered unto the saints, and like Paul’s noble companion, Barnabas, ‘He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost.’ ”
Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge, Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary for many years, and a distinguished member of the famed Hodge family, remarked: “I not only loved him as a personal friend, but I regarded him as the greatest theologian in the English-speaking world. The whole cause of evangelical Christianity has lost its greatest leader.” In speaking of Dr. Machen as a scholar, Dr. Maitland Alexander stated: “I do not hesitate to say that he was the world’s greatest New Testament scholar, and those who attempted to answer him were thrown back like waves that beat against an eternal rock. He was the greatest champion of the Reformed Faith (or Calvinism) of the world . . . Here was a man who was the greatest of all in his life, and in his death generated a power that will almost pull down the adversaries of the Son of God and exalt Him and His Cross high above all things, that men will return from the uttermost end of the earth to be sprinkled with the blood of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.”
r. R. A. Meek, formerly Editor of the New Orleans Christian Advocate, and of The Southern Methodist, said: “I regarded him, in point of scholarship, force of personality, and effective service, as the first Protestant minister in the nation; and in his lamented decease I feel that the cause of evangelical Christianity in this country has lost its ablest exponent and defender.”
The late Dr. J. B. Hutton, long the Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, and one of the ablest thinkers of his generation in the entire South, stated: “The immorality of the truths of which Dr. Machen was in his day the truest, ablest, and most uncompromising defender and exemplar will attach to him. While these truths live his name cannot die.”
In the Boston Evening Transcript, Albert C. Dieffenback wrote: “J. Gresham Machen will be honored wherever men understand his character and his mission. Those who disagreed with him knew his power . . . No other man equalled Dr. Machen in recognized command of the situation. That his passing brings into relief the lack of success of the great religious adventure only slightly dims the significance of the fundamental character of the issue. There has not been and there will not be a surrender by the conservative Presbyterians . . . Out of the historic issue of fundamentalism, which began about 1920 in the Northern Baptist Churches but continued unabated among a minority in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., that is, the Northern Presbyterian Church, he emerges in death as the theologian and crusader, as learned and valiant a spiritual warrior as the Protestant church has produced in modern times.”
And, in speaking of Dr. Machen as a scholar, The Presbyterian Guardian remarked: “Union Theological Seminary of New York City is known as one of the leading modernist institutions in the United States. On four different occasions Dr. Machen was invited to address its undergraduates on historic Christianity because that seminary regarded him as the leading exponent of that viewpoint in America. He accepted those invitations so that he might bear testimony to the gospel with the hope that some student might see the truth.”
Dr. Machen As An Author
Not only was Dr. Machen known as a great theologian and scholar, but he was also widely acclaimed both in America and in Europe because of the books which he wrote. He was the author of The Origin of Paul’s Religion (1921), Christianity And Liberalism(1923), New Testament Greek for Beginners (1923), What Is Faith? (1925), The Virgin Birth of Christ (1930), The Christian Faith in the Modern World (1936), The Christian View of Man (1937), God Transcendent (1949), and numerous articles in periodicals.
His books won the very highest praise from Christians and from non-Christians alike. For instance, Walter Lippmann, the Harvard educated news columnist, who is not a professing Christian but who is acclaimed as one of America’s ablest commentators and critics, said of one of Dr. Machen’s volumes: “There is also a reasoned case against the Modernists. Fortunately, this case has been stated in a little book called Christianity and Liberalism by a man who is both a scholar and a gentleman. The author is Professor J. Gresham Machen of the Princeton Theological Seminary. It is an admirable book. For its acumen, for its saliency, and for its wit this cool and stringent defense of orthodox Protestantism is, I think, the best popular argument produced by either side in the current controversy. We shall do well to listen to Dr. Machen.”
And The Presbyterian Guardian remarked in 1937 of Dr. Machen as an author: “Some years ago Dr. Kirsopp Lake, a noted liberal theologian, now professor of history at Harvard University, was asked to recommend a book on Paul the Apostle from the historic Christian viewpoint. He replied that The Origin of Paul’s Religion, by J. Gresham Machen, was the best. Dr. Adolph Deissmann, one-time professor of New Testament at Berlin University, as far back as ten years ago was using Dr. Machen’s Pamphlet on the Virgin Birth and referring to it as authoritative on the subject. This was before the publication of Dr. Machen’s monumental work on the Virgin Birth of Christ.”
“The Virgin Birth Of Christ”
Of all of the books which Dr. Machen wrote, probably The Virgin Birth of Christ is his greatest; and it is probably the greatest volume on that subject which has yet been written. Its publication caused immediate and wide-spread comment.
For instance, in speaking of this monumental volume, the London Times (England) said: “Professor Machen’s work is elaborate, learned, and full. The writer possesses an acute mind and a competent knowledge of modern critical literature.”
The Glasgow Evening Citizen (Scotland) stated: “In the literature of Biblical Criticism no greater book has been written for some time.”
The Church Quarterly Review (London, England) observed: “We hazard the conjecture that Dr. Machen’s contribution may well mark a turning point in the whole discussion, and for some years to come will exercise a steadying influence in helping many to retain their belief in the Virgin Birth in spite of all that can be said against it from the point of view of liberal criticism.”
The Edinburgh Expository Times (Scotland) said: “Whatever we may think of Dr. Machen’.s doctrinal standpoint, we cannot but be impressed by his learning and ability …”
Ferd. Kattenbusch, a noted liberal theologian, in a twenty-page article commenting on Dr. Machen’s volume in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (Germany), remarked: “It is no doubt the most extensive book on the subject that has hitherto appeared, an impressive volume. But it is—this testimony I must render to it—also so earnest, so circumspect, so intelligent in its discussions, that it must be recognized unqualifiedly as an important achievement.”
Maurice Goguel, in Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses (France), wrote: “He knows all the theories which have been proposed concerning the birth of Jesus, and by the very precise references which his book contains he will render the greatest service to all those who may take up the study of the subject even if they do so from a point of view different from his.”
The British Weekly (England) observed: “Professor Machen has written a book on the Virgin Birth which is certain to gain the attention of all, friends or foes, who have an interest in this perplexing subject. His work is genuinely learned; it displays a thorough mastery of relevant literature, even when rather out of the way, and it is surrounded by a wider zone of scholarship than discussion of this special subject might seem to require, but one which testifies the more to the writer’s extreme carefulness.”
The Christian Century, one of the noted Modernist religious papers in America, stated: “The author has thought all around his subject and has left no phase unconsidered. His earlier published studies show that he has been thinking about it for a quarter of a century. I am not aware of any important literature on either side of the subject that he has overlooked, unless it be the more recent work on Quirinius and the census. But that problem plays a small part in his discussions anyhow.”
And The New York Herald Tribune remarked: “Whatever one’s opinion may be concerning the great problem of which he writes here, it is the first duty of a reviewer to say that his book is in a high degree creditable to the reputation of America in theological learning, and is an achievement that gives its author a distinguished standing among New Testament scholars everywhere.”
Why Was Dr. Machen Kicked Out Of The Ministry In The Northern Presbyterian Church?
From all of these comments regarding Dr. Machen as a man, as a scholar, and as an author, it is easy to see that he was one of the greatest figures that Presbyterianism in America has yet produced.
Possessed of massive learning, and of a clear and profound and powerful mind which the liberal Christian Century termed
“Skilled to divide
A hair ‘twixt south and southwest side,”
Dr. Machen believed in the full inspiration of the Holy Bible. And he championed all of the great doctrines of the Christian Faith as they are summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
Nevertheless, Dr. Machen was kicked out of the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church. Now none of the signers of the Auburn Affirmation were ever dismissed from the ministry of that denomination; in fact, many of them were honored by being placed on prominent Standing Committees of the General Assembly of that church, and by being put on the faculties and boards of trustees of some of its theological seminaries. And some of them were even elected to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly of that denomination.
But Dr. Machen, on the other hand, was placed on trial by the Presbytery of New Brunswick. He was found guilty as charged. On appeal to the Synod of New Jersey, and later to the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church, the judgment of the Presbytery of New Brunswick was affirmed.
And thus, in 1936, Dr. Machen was dismissed from the ministry of the Northern Presbyterian Church!
Now why was Dr. Machen kicked out?
(Continued in the next issue)