PSALM 102:13-22 - Orthodox Presbyterian Church · PSALM 102:13-22 Thou shalt arise, ... His name...

TME PRESBYTERIAN(ONSTITUTIONAL(OVENANT UNiON

o

a

VOLUME 2., NUMBER 3

May 4. 1936

o ~o ~OUO 000001: ~Ol[ 01: 0000000•. i:I

-From The Scottish Psalter •

PSALM 102: 13-22

Thou shalt arise, and mercy yetThou to mount Sion shall extend:Her time for favour which was set,Behold, is now come to an end.Thy saints take pleasure in her stones,Her very dust to them is dear.All heathen lands and kingly thronesOn earth thy glorious name shall fear.

God in his glory shall appear,When Sion he builds and repairs.He shall regard and lend his earUnto the needy's humble pray'rs:Th' afflicted's pray'r he will not scorn.All times this shall be on record:And generations yet unbornShall praise and magnify the Lord.

He from his holy place look'd down,The earth he view'd from heav'n on high,To hear the pris'ner's mourning groan,And free them that are doom'd to die;That Sion, and Jerus'lem too,His name and praise may well record,When people and the kingdoms doAssemble all to praise the Lord.

0<: 0<: 000

o

o

o

o

o

·:-10 0

o

o

e

•11 "JOI

o

II

42 THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

The Changing Scene and the UnchangingWordBy the REV. J. GRESHAM MACHEN. D.D.. Litt.D.

Dr. Maehen

An Apostate Church?

TH E covenant inthe Constitution of

the Presbyterian Constitutional CovenantUnion plainly contemplates for the nearfuture the possibility-to say the leastof separation fro m

the present organization of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Such separation is denounced bythe opponents of the Covenant Unionas involving the sin that is called thesin of schism-a sin that is plainlycondemned in the Word of God.

But, as was pointed out on thispage in the last number of THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN, not every separation from an existing church isschism. It was not schism when theearly Protestants broke away fromthe Church of Rome.

Still less will it be schism if themembers of the Covenant Unionbreak away from the organizationnow known as the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A. and if they continue the true spiritual succession ofthat church in the manner contemplated in the covenant.The Meaning of the 1934Mandate

It is not schism to break away froman apostate church. Indeed it isschism to remain in an apostate church,since to remain in an apostate churchis to separate from the true Churchof Jesus Christ.

Will, then, the Presbyterian Churchin the U.S.A. be shown to be anapostate church if the Mandate ofthe 1934 and 1935 General Assemblies is declared to be constitutionalby the Permanent Judicial Commission and the judgment of the Commission is confirmed by the GeneralAssembly convening in Syracuse onThursday, May 28th?

Very deliberately, and with fullconsciousness of the seriousness ofwhat I am saying, I say "Yes." ThePresbyterian Church in the U.S.A.will plainly be shown to be an apostate church if that Mandate is de-

dared constitutional by the GeneralAssembly sitting as a court.

The Mandate, by making the support of whatever program of boardsand agencies is set up by shiftingmajority votes in the General Assembly a condition of ordination and ofmembership in the church, is placingthe word of man above the Word ofGod and is dethroning Jesus Christ.A church that places the word ofman above the Word of God andthat dethrones Jesus Christ is an apostate church. It is the duty of all trueChristians to separate from such achurch.

The Meaning of a JudicialDecision

At present that Mandate, with itsattack upon the lordship of Christover His church is merely an administrative pronouncement. As suchit is not an act of the church. Appealis possible from such administrativeactions to the courts of the church.

But if such an appeal has beentaken and has gone up through thelower courts to the highest courtnamely, the General Assembly sittingnot as administrative body but as acourt-and if the appeal against theMandate has been lost, then thechurch itself will have acted in accordance wi-th the Mandate. Suchaction is no longer just an action ofthe General Assembly of the church;it is an action of the church.

Can Christian people remain in achurch which, acting not just by itsGeneral Assembly, but by its fulljudicial machinery, has engaged insuch an apostate act?

The Editor of THE PRESBYTERIANGUARDIAN, in his editorial of April6th, says "No." I certainly hope thatthe words of the Editor may be-tosay the least-earnestly pondered.

The Meaning of This ParticularDecision

Even, however, if a man is notconvinced that true Christians oughtto withdraw from a church which hasby any judicial decision dethronedJesus Christ, they plainly ought towithdraw from a church which has

done so by this particular judicialdecision.

This particular judicial decision isnot an ordinary judicial decision.It is not an isolated matter aboutwhich the Permanent Judicial Commission might conceivably haveslipped up without really exhibitingthe mind and heart of the wholechurch. But it will mean the finalendorsement of a fixed policy whichis being applied with ever increasingrigor.

What is that policy? It is the policyof exclusion from the ministry of allwho will not support the propagandaof the Modernist boards and agenciesnow functioning in the church andwill not promise, for the future, ablanket allegiance to human programsas shifting majorities in future General Assemblies may set them up.

That policy has been favored byenormous majorities in two successive General Assemblies. It is beingruthlessly applied in presbytery afterpresbytery.

We ought to be under no delusionsabout this matter. If the 1936 GeneralAssembly, sitting as a court, declaresthe 1934 and 1935 Mandate to beconstitutional, then it will be practically impossible for any man uponwhom Christ has laid His hands forHis ministry to be ordained anywherein the Presbyterian Church in theU.S.A. Only those who dethrone theirLord will be received. Those whobravely confess Christ will be rejected.

What are we going to do aboutthese young men whom Christ hascalled and whom the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A. rejects?

I will tell you what we ought to doabout it if we are really in earnestabout our allegiance to Jesus Christ.We ought to separate at once from anapostate church organization thatsystematically refuses to lay the handsof presbytery upon those men uponwhom Christ has laid His hands, andought to take steps to be membersof a church that will lay hands uponthem and that will thank God forhaving called them into the ministryof His Son.

..

..

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

EDITORIAL

43

•

"IF THE PENALTY IS LIGHT"

FREQU E NT LY we have been asked in the past fewweeks: what will you do if the "mandate" of 1934

is upheld by the Assembly sitting as a court, but thepenalty made merely admonition or rebuke?

This is a fair question. The answer is simple.The seriousness of the 1934 action in the life of the

church does not arise mainly from the penalty assessedagainst the particular defendants who have stood trial.For example, we believe the decision in the Buswelland Laird cases, where admonition and rebuke weredirected, to be just as bad as the decision in the Machenor McIntire cases where the defendants were sentencedto ultimate suspension, In all these cases the verdicthurf,not merely a few defendants, but the very fabricof the Constitution of the Church. The deliveranceforsakes essential Biblical, Protestant principles. Itsubstitutes the word of man for the Word of God asthe rule of faith and obedience. Thus, with fair words,it detnrbhestheLord Jesus Christ as the Church'sonlyTHeadand King. 'If the "mandate" and the prosecutions under it afe judicially upheld the PresbyterianChurch in the U:S.A. will have struck a blow, not ata few defendants, but at the Lord of Glory. It will nolonger be a true Protestant Church. It will have committed the terrible sin of dishonoring the absolute andsole Lordship of Jesus Christ. And this, to true Protestants is just as great a heresy as if the Assembly sittingas a court should deny the Virgin Birth, the Atonement,the bodily Resurrecton of our Lord. Only either profound ignorance of our Reformed heritage or recklessindifference to it could have caused those now dominating the machinery of the church to contemplate andexecute the course they have taken.

Viewed in this light, it can easily be seen why thematter of the penalty assessed against a few defendantsisa relatively minor matter. True, they are to bepunished for loyalty to the Word of God. But the realpenalty falls, not on man, but on Christ, and is justas dishonoring to Him in any case. _

It is not now a matter of the Independent Boardmerely. The Headship of Christ the Lord is at stake. Thechurch is standing at a crossroads. One way is the wayof blessing. The other is the way of death.

HITLERIZING THE CHURCHI T IS safe to say that not since 1837 has a GeneralAssembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

met facing such a crisis as that which confronts thisyear's Assembly. In 1837 the division began that was tolast for a generation. Yet, deep as were the issues which

rent the Church a century ago, they are almost slight ascompared with the choices of 1936.

The commissioners who come to Syracuse will betreated to the spectacle of a General Assembly run by amachine so efficiently lubricated and quietly poweredthat they may be at times even inclined to doubt theexistence of any such machine. The party now in controlof the Church has developed a technique of swingingcommissioners behind it that should make the managersof Republican or Democratic conventions appear asrank amateurs. The platform suggests, dominates, inspires, directs, persuades, impresses. It lullabys thecommissioners to sleep concerning the state of theChurch. It is an every-moment influence, dramatized forthe eye and ear. Few resist it. Before the commissionersmarch the "big men" of the Church, fulsomely complimenting each other. From them and from the reportsof the Boards and agencies pours forth a mass of detailand advice so complex as to be unassimilable. Long reports are followed by speeches lauding the reportsby the people lauded in the reports. Then after ashort, hurried period allocated to the "floor" butusually used by someone else, the commissioners areurged on to vote and then to the next item onthe docket. Except in very unusual cases, the commissioners might as well be back home, for they spendmost of their time listening and then voting eitheraye or nay according to the obvious wishes of the platform. They are guarded from noticing this, however, bybeing hurried from one thing to another in double time.Even their evenings are taken up with "inspirational"meetings in the interest of official agencies where againthose in charge by their very presence impress everyonewith their importance. It is an exceptional person whocan remain unaffected by a week of this mental goosestep. So the commissioners are won over by beingallowed to march in the parade. Unconsciously they areled to identify the Church with the individuals now incontrol. One right, however, is jealously guarded forthe commissioners as their one inalienable possession.They are allowed to applaud, on occasion even to standup for the very great. The exercise of this basic right isnot only approved, but actually encouraged!

All this beautiful unanimity and fellowship is calculated to make the commissioners happy and grateful.They will, naturally, thereafter be inclined to resent anything that might savor of criticism, or cause unpleasantness or division. This, of course, is just what the machine wants and has worked for. It makes the squashingof any opposition just so much easier.

The Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. is now, like

...

44 THE PRE S BYT ERI A N G UA. DI A N

Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia, run forall practical purposes by one party. One-party domina-tion is always extremely perilous. In the countries justmentioned, the dominant parties have, for all practicalpurposes, identified themselves with the state. "Loyalty"in those lands now involves approval of the party inpower. Opposition elements are ruthlessly crushed. The"blood purge" is an essential element in this process.All this is the exact reverse of the democratic conceptinherent in both the American and Presbyterian systems.Yet exactly the same thing is happening in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. "Loyalty" is being identified with approval-s-even in advance !--of the acts ofthe party in power and the official agencies it dominates.This cannot be defended on the ground that the Presbyterian Church is a voluntary society, from which personsmay easily withdraw, for the one simple reason thatours is a constitutional church in which Protestantliberties are guaranteed and in which good standing doesnot depend upon approval of the group in temporarycontrol.

We have seen the rise of the totalitarian state, andnow we face an attempt to establish a totalitarian Churchin what was once a citadel of constitutional democracy.1936 will see the culmination of the attempt of those inpower to eliminate the "conservative" party. This partystands for nothing novel or strange. Its platform issimply the whole Constitution of the Church, nothingmore, nothing less. In standing on the Constitution, ithas been attempting to bring about reform, to checkbureaucratic centralization of power, to resist the attempts being made to make approval of the administration a test of ministerial communion, to restore as apractical matter the witness to the Gospel now sadlyobscured by the dominance of the modernist-indifferentist machine. In reply to this, the machine is attemptingto imitate Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini by eliminatingthe opposition party. The commissioners will be askedto help hitlerize the Church on the plea that "loyalty"demands the punishment and expulsion of the "disloyal"conservatives.

Commissioners who do not trouble to think for themselves, or who are fearful of the Church machine willaccept what the platform says and vote as they are told,without question. But those who will think for themselves, in whom the spirit of democratic, constitutionalliberty is not dead, will resist these machine demandswith all their might. Humanly speaking, all dependsupon the presence in the Assembly of men who are intelligent and essential Protestants. Such will have courage to stand against the tide. They will refuse to bestampeded by the perfervid emotionalism of the platform. They will not be afraid to march right up to the

breastwork of halos behind which the machine will- barricade itself. They will be willing to risk being reviledand misunderstood as long as they are right; as longas they can speak a good word and strike a good blowfor the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.

This year the party in power has made every effortto keep its known and conspicuous opponents from beingelected as commissioners to the Assembly. That efforthas succeeded to a large degree. The great submergedbody of conservatives will be about as well representedby known champions in the coming Assembly as are theGerman Jews in Hitler's latest Reichstag. If the Constitution of the Church is to be preserved by votes atthis Assembly, it will have to be by men who have notuntil now taken an active part inthe current controversy.The course of the Assembly will depend upon. the"unknown commissioners." Perhaps God in His providence is preparing some hitherto nationally obscureor inactive champion for His truth. Such an one mayeven read these words before realizing the task. whichGod has set him. If such an unknown Luther there be,may God give him grace and strength. For the Churchstands upon the brink of irremediable apostasy. This isnot merely because of a projected injustice to loyal men.It is because this year's decision will involve eitherobedience to, or final rejection of, the final authority ofthe Lord Jesus Christ, speaking through His Word. Ifthe word of man, as represented by the action of the1934 Assembly against the Independent Board is judicially upheld, the headship of Christ will have been officially rejected. The Roman Catholic principle of thenature of Church power will then have triumphed. TrueProtestant Christians will then have to separate themselves from an organization that has repudiated theReformation. God grant that official desire for powermay not drive a great Church into suicidal madness.

If this happens-and we pray God that it may notthe historic witness of the Church will undoubtedly becarried on apart from an organization that has becomeofficially apostate. In that case those who carryon thetrue spiritual succession will be, now and in the comingyears, the true Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

ESCHATALOGICAL FREEDOM

A MO NG th~se who love the ~ospel there are wellknown differences concernmg eschatalegy, On

essential facts and doctrines, all true adherents of theReformed Faith ought to be and are in hearty agreement. Yet, as touching upon matters which are not ofthe essence of the Reformed Faith, the PresbyterianChurches have always recognized a wide area of liberty.For example, the fact that Christ will some day return

(Concluded on Page 52)


What Have We Learned?By the REV. PAUL WOOLLEY, Th.M.

Assistant Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary

45

•

IN MANY, and probably in most of the

presbyteries of thePresbyterian Churchin the U.S.A. a youngman suspected of being a true evangelicalcannot now be licensed

Mr. Woolley or ordained to thegospel ministry unless

he will pledge himself to supportModernism.

This, however, is not the first timein history that such a situation hasarisen.

On May 3, 1817, the authorities ofthe church in Geneva, the city ofCalvin himself, issued a regulationrequiring candidates for the ministryto promise not to preach on (amongother things) original sin, efficaciousgrace, and predestination.

On July 21, 1830 the General Synodof the Netherlands Reformed Churchrefused admission to membership inthe '.church to Hermann F. Kohlbriigge, a student who had just received his doctorate in theology, because he had criticised modernisticpreaching.

In 'August, 1835, the ProvincialCommission of South Holland of thesame church refused to admit A. C.Van Raalte to the Christian ministrybecause he would not promise againsthis conscience to obey all the rules ofthe General Synod including one directed against the teaching of BiblicalChristianity in the church.

The results of these measures areinteresting in both Geneva and theNetherlands. In both cases they werefar-reaching in effect. In the lattercase, however, they concern a churchof greater size and are particularlyinstructive for the present moment inthe United States.

The center of interest in this matterin the Netherlands in 1834 was ahumble country pastor in a northernvillage, Hendrik De Cock. De Cockyielded to the entreaties of believingChristian parents from the parisheswhere there were unbelieving pastors

and baptized their children. Further,he wrote a pamphlet exposing theModernism of two ministers, wolvesin sheep's clothing. For these highcrimes and misdemeanors ( !) he wassuspended from the ministry.

During the time of his suspension afriend of his, a true Christian minister from the southern part of thecountry, visited him. The visitor, theRev. H. P. Scholte, was invited bythe elders to preach on Sunday morning in De Cock's pulpit. The ecclesiastical authorities, however, refusedto permit him to do so. He was forcedto preach the gospel in an open meadow. As a consequence he, too, wassuspended from the ministry after hisreturn home.

De Cock's appeals to the higherchurch courts were all in vain, and inOctober, 1834 the church at Ulrumbecame the mother church' of a newfree and truly Reformed church inthe Netherlands.

The real underlying reason demanding the formation of this free churchwas the fact that the un-Reformedsystem of control of the nationalchurch imposed upon it by the government in 1816 made it possible fora few tyrannical men to control thewhole body in the interests of thespread of Modernism. It was a system which made the active rulers ofthe church the members of small, selected boards which largely took theplace of a Reformed series of churchcourts.

The separate free church grewslowly as true and honest men weresuspended from the ministry of thenational church because they weretrue to their convictions or voluntarily withdrew for the same reason.

But some Christian men stayeJ inthe national church. They gave threechief excuses: 1. Their business wasto save souls and they would loseopportunities to do this by allyingthemselves with this small group. 2.The national church was not yet hopelessly lost to the gospel. 3. Those whowere separating were poor in thisworld's goods and in social standing

and their manners and methods werenot always of the best.

The Christians who stayed in thenational church were of two kinds.Some were like the Rev. Dirk Molenaar who wrote anonymously a strongexposure of the equivocation involvedin the formula of subscription of thechurch. When his authorship was discovered, he was soundly rebuked bythe authorities and thereafter keptquiet for twenty long years. Otherswere like the statesman Groen vanPrinsterer who with six others in1842 openly sent to the General Synoda strong address of protest against theapostasy in the church, and continuedto work publicly against Modernism.

But both methods were vain. Thechurch became more and more dominated by men who hid their Modernism behind slogans such as "Truth inLove" and "Not the doctrine but theliving Lord."

A new generation was growing upin the national church and among itsyoung liberal preachers was a graduate of Leiden named Abraham Kuyper. In one of his country churches hewas greatly impressed by the Christian life of a poor peasant girl wholived by a supernatural power ofwhich he knew nothing. As a result ofthis testimony and other factors Kuyper began to think seriously, andthrough the work of the Spirit thecourse of his life was utterly changed.He was called to an Amsterdamchurch, and there the great truths ofthe gospel began to sound forth majestically from his pulpit.

In 1876 the faculties of theology inthe state universities were secularized.They were now simply faculties ofthe history of religion where Christianity was on the same footing withfalse religions. To meet the need fora school where true Christian pastorscould be trained in accord with theteaching of the Bible the Free University of Amsterdam was foundedin 1880 under the mighty stimulus ofAbraham Kuyper.

There now took place in rapid sue-


cession in the national church twofurther culminating steps downward:

1. In 1880 church sessions were forbidden to examine persons who wishedto take communion as to their savingknowledge of Christ.

2. In 1883 the terms of subscription for ministers were again alteredso that they need only promise "toforward the concerns of the kingdomof God."

But there were left in Amsterdamsome true servants of God among theelders. These men refused to grantletters of good standing in the churchto young people who gave no evidenceof being Christians. Further, theytook steps to prevent the modernistchurch governing boards from securing control of the property of theAmsterdam churches. As a resulteighty Amsterdam elders were suspended from office.

In their efforts to prevent the rightful trustees of the church property ofAmsterdam from continuing to exercise legal control thereover, the modernist party went to the extreme stepof taking possession of the meetingroom of the trustees in the NieuweKerk in Amsterdam. They installeda new American lock on the door andin order to "fortify" themselves inpossession actually lined the insideof the door with plates of iron, sothat the trustees could not hold ameeting until they had secured theservices of a carpenter. These measures, if they did nothing else, provoked a great amount of mirth in thepublic press, and the comic journalsenjoyed considerable fun over the attack upon the armor-plated church.

For the situation caused by thesesuspensions the evangelical leaderswere prepared, however. They hadseen for some time the signs pointingto this climax. Nearly three years before a meeting in Amsterdam hadgiven those present an opportunity todeclare 1) that they stood for agreement with the fundamental standardsof the church as a condition of churchmembership, and 2) that when theywere hindered from acknowledgingChrist as king, they would refuse torecognize the authority of the governmentally imposed church courts.

The time had now come. The suspension of the eighty elders was accompanied by a refusal to ordain to

the gospel mirustry, and install in achurch that had been vacant for eighteen years, a graduate of the theological faculty of the Free University ofAmsterdam. This church at Kootwijkcast off the yoke of the nationalchurch, and one by one other churchesand ministers followed. Before verylong some two hundred churches andseventy-five ministers had refused torecognize any longer the General Synod's tyranny.

These churches and ministers wentout from under a corrupt and modernistically inclined hierarchy. Theyfound in the fresh and invigoratingair of freedom fellowship with thechurch that had started at Ulrum in1834 with one minister and his congregation but which had now growninto a stately body of some 200,000members. In 1892 the two groups bornfrom the pressure of the same tyrannyunited to form the great ReformedChurches of the Netherlands.

Today they stand as a body of some600,000 members having given to thewhole Christian world two of thegreatest masters of the Reformed faiththat modern times have seen, HermanBavinck and Abraham Kuyper. Thepresent Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Hendrik Colijn, is a member ofthis once despised church. But that isonly a symbol. Far more important isthe fact that they minister the pureWord of God from the mission fieldsof Java on the east to the brave coastsof stalwart Holland in the west, thatWord which shall stand until Christreturns to reign, yea, for evermore.

It may be observed that the manifestations of tyranny in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. today areremarkably similar to those employedin the Netherlands. The hostility totrue Christian doctrine exhibited inthe refusals to ordain candidates forthe ministry is of the same type.

In the Netherlands illegalities ofprocedure accompanied these tyrannical actions as they do in the UnitedStates. Hendrik De Cock was suspended from the ministry by a courtwhich did not have a quorum presentand which based its sentence in largepart upon an offense with which hehad not even been formally charged.

The reasons offered for not supporting De Cock are of quite the samenature as those presented at the pres-

ent time. Men who acted upon principles dictated by expediency hoped,nevertheless, to attain pious ends andto forward the salvation of souls.

What was the result? They foundthemselves entangled in a non-Reformed organization, dominated bymethods much like those of our General Council, which was constantlyfavoring Modernism. Theological education became more and more antiChristian; the terms of subscriptionto the ministry were weakened (notethe attempt to do the same thing inthe recent Plan of Union with theUnited Presbyterian Church, adoptedby an overwhelming majority in ourGeneral Assembly); and membershipin the church became often a matterof expediency and conventional morals.

The attempt to reform the churchfrom within failed hopelessly. Thosewho renounced their opportunity tojoin in the forming of a faithfulchurch in 1834 and subsequent yearsdied miserably in the old organizationafter seeing the failure of one futileeffort after another.

In 1886 a second generation of trueChristians that had been born and hadgrown up in the national church during the preceding fifty years followedtheir spiritual fathers in leaving anun-Christian organization for thehumble but true halls of Zion. Eventhen there were those who failed tosee the opportunity for testimony tothe power of the gospel. In 1886 Dr.P. J. Hoedemaker resigned from thefaculty of the Free University ofAmsterdam six years after its founding since he wished to remain withinthe national church.

But those who cast sentiment,friends, appearances, security and allother things behind them for the sakeof Christ found a glorious triumph.

Is the national church of the N etherlands a focus for the eyes of loversof the Reformed faith throughout theworld? Not for a moment. But fromSouth Africa, Japan, the UnitedStates, from wherever there are lovers of the doctrines of Holy WritGod's people thank Him for the stalwart and unshaken testimony of thefree Reformed Churches of the Netherlands to the glories of His grace.May that testimony long continue, andmay God grant us in His grace theprivilege of seeing a like glorioustestimony in these United States.

-

THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN 47

The Next Bureaucratic Step

Xarnestlyrequestlng y.our prompt and hearty coot\eratlon in thl.study, believe me,

Recently we have received In the Office of the General A8semblyfrom a number of persons who apparently were writing quite independently eaeh of the othe other, a suggestion that the plan now in usein the United Church of Caneda in the realm or Vacancy and Supplymight be made available, With modifications, to our needs as aChurch.

This C&na.dian Plan has received considerable attention fromthose of us Who are immediately responsible for the Department orVacancy and SulliY or the Orrice or the General Assembly. We haveeven gone So far as to confer With those in the Canadian Church whoare .... inly x-esponsible ror its operation. But it is highly desirablethat we should receive constructive cr1ticisms from our Stated Clerkaor Presbyteries and Synods and Chairmen or Vacancy and Supply COlIIIIit·tees, as well ae from others intimately associated on the field WithVacancy and Supply problems.

As such an officer, we are hereWith tranam.1ttlng to you a copyor the plan taken verbatim rrCIII the Manual ot the united Church orCanada. Will you not examine this carefully and write us fullybasing your reply upon its provisions:

1. A. to how you believe this plan can be modiried to meet ourneed' as a Church, and

2. As to how you believe our Form ot Government should be amended,if neces8ary, to make your suggeatlolliS possIble.

resent each Presbytery on the Committee. If less than two Ministers,or two Laymen, have been electedfrom the nominations, the Conferenceshall elect at least two Ministers, ortwo Laymen, as the case may be, asmembers of the Committee, in addition to those already elected.

5. When any member of the Settlement Committee dies, resigns fromthe Committee, removes outside the

bounds of the presbytery, or, being a Minister, engages in secularwork, his place on theCommittee shall be declared vacant. A minister applying for a transfer out of the Conference shall cease to be amember of the Committee when the application has beengranted. When a vacancy occurs, it shallbe filled by nominationby the Presbytery concerned and election bythe Conference, or itsExecutive. Between hisnomination and election such nominee shallbe a correspondingmember of the Committee.

6. It shall be theduty of the SettlementCommittee to considerall applications for settlement from Ministersand Pastoral Chargeswithin the district overwhich it has jurisdic-tion. For this purposeit shall meet annuallybefore the meeting ofthe Conference nextafter that by which itwas appointed. The Annual Meeting shall be

convened by its Chairman, not earlierthan twenty days previous to, and notlater than the day of the opening ofthe Conference.

7. The Settlement Committee shallhave authority also to initiate correspondence with Ministers and Pastoral Charges with a view to completing arrangements to secure necessary and desirable settlements. It

--." WITHERSPOON MlILDI"G

PMI"'OlI:"""'''.....

January 1, 1936.

Yours very S~::11'·S~

Lewis S. Mudge'Stated Clerk

OFFICE OF THE CENERAL ASSEMBLY

ported to the Conference for information.

4. It is recommended that eachPresbytery, at its last regular meetingprevious to the meeting of Conference, shall nominate not less thantwo persons, either Ministers or Laymen, for the Settlement Committee.From these nominations the Conference shall elect two persons to rep-

(The General Council recommendseach Conference to invite the Chairman of the Home Missions Committee of the Conference to be a corresponding member of its SettlementCommittee.) The Committee shallelect its chairman and secretary at aspecial meeting to be called by thePresident of the Conference at sometime before the close of the Conference, and their names shall be re-

&QWftw: NI£AO

1Illtv.LtWIS So MIID.Ii. D.O., LL.D..,....n.ca.a.

TO THE STATED CLERKS OF PRESBYTERIES AND SYNODSAND CHAIRMEN OF VACANCY AND SUPPLY COMMITTEES:

Dear Brethren:

THE SETTLEMENT

COMMITTEE

1. The pastoral relation shall be without atime limit. The policyof the Church shall bethat every pastoralcharge shall have, asfar as possible, a pastorate without inter-ruption, and that everyeffective minister shallhave a pastoral charge.

2. A Settlement Committee, consisting ofministers and laymen, shall be appointed annually by each Conference.

3. The President of the Conference shall be ex-officio a member ofthe Settlement Committee appointedby the Conference over which he presides. Each Superintendent of HomeMissions within the Conference shallbe ex-officio a member of the Settlement Committee of that Conference.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Following is thetext of the plan of vacancy and supply now in use in the United Churchof Canada, referred to in the letterreproduced on this page. The UnitedChurch of Canada was formed in1925 as a merger of the Methodistand Congregational Churches together with a portion of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. This systemof vacancy and supply is such asmight normally be ex-pected in an attempt toblend Methodist andPresbyterian principlesand names. If adopted,even with modifications, it would involvesuch a departure frombasic Presbyterian anddemocratic principles asto be obvious to all.We believe it highlysignificant that the planis being suggested atthis time: If it isadopted, the party nowdominant will soon possess a kind of controlover the church thatwill make even its present power seem insignificant. It is the nextbureaucratic step.]

...


By the REV. HENRY G. WELBON

The Case of Board Y. Board

shall also receive information fromthe Pastoral Relations Committee ofeach Presbytery concerning prospective changes in pastoral relationshipswithin its bounds and, where deemedadvisable, shall communicate thesame to the Transfer Committee. Forthese purposes it shall function fromthe beginning of, and throughout thepastoral year.

8. A Minister by his own actionand a Pastoral Charge through itsconstitutional representatives (OfficialBoard), may seek a change of pastoral relationship by means of an application through the Presbytery tothe Settlement Committee. All suchapplications, including any call or invitation, shall be in writing, arid shallbe made to the Presbytery as earlyas possible, but not less than thirtydays before the annual meeting ofthe Settlement Committee; exceptthat under special circumstances, bymutual consent of both the Ministersand the Pastoral Charges, changes inthe pastoral relationship may be effected without such thirty days'notice.

9. The Settlement Committee shallconsider all communications transmitted by the Presbyteries, includingapplications in writing, from PastoralCharges which desire changes in pastoral relationships, together with calls,invitations and such representationsas may have been made concerningthem. While settlements shall ordinarily be made at the time of themeeting of Conference, the Committee shall have authority, throughan Executive, to effect settlements inemergencies during the year.

10. Any Minister shall have theright to appear before the SettlementCommittee to present his case in regard to his appointment; and anyPastoral Charge or Official Boardmay also appear by not more thantwo representatives, properly authorized in writing, appointed fromamong its members at a regular meeting, or at a special meeting of whichproper notice has been given.

11. Any Pastoral Charge, in viewof a vacancy, may extend a call orinvitation to any properly qualifiedMinister or Ministers, but the rightof appointment shall rest with theSettlement Committee, which shall report to the Conference for information only.

12. While the right of appointment

shall rest with the Settlement Committee, it shall comply as far as possible with the expressed wishes ofMinisters and Pastoral Charges.

(a) The Settlement Committeeought to appoint Ministers to be Missionaries to the Indians, or to beSuperintendents of Institutions largelysupported by the Board of Home Missions, only on the recommendation ofthe Board itself.

(b) After the grant to a HomeMission field, or an Aid-receivingCharge has been definitely fixed bythe Board of Home Missions on therecommendation of the Presbyteryand Conference Home Mission Committees, the Settlement Committee ofthe Conference ought not to makeappointments which will requirelarger grants, without the consent ofthe Board of Home Missions.

13. When a Minister chosen by aPastoral Charge cannot be settled,the Charge or its constitutional repres~ntatives (Official Board), may'place other names before the Settlement Committee.

14. When a Pastoral Charge, aboutto become vacant at the end of theConference or pastoral year (June30th in each year), fails to gi ve a

IlyOUR Honor,"the prosecutor

began, "we are aboutto try one of the mostunusual cases in legalhistory. Inasmuch asthe general public can-

Mr. Welbon not understand theprocedure of this

amazing trial, and will misconstrueour actions, thereby harming the goodname of my client and the honoredcorporation of which she is a loyalmember, I ask that this trial be heldbehind closed doors."

As Mr. H. Bible, the defense attorney, rose to his feet the presidingjudge replied, "I second the motionof the prosecutor. We have alreadydecided to hold this trial in secret."An ex-prize fighter, employed for theoccasion, began ordering the reportersand visitors out of the dismal chamber.

After this was done Mr. Bible ad-

call or invitation within the timespecified by the General Council, theSettlement Committee shall make theappointment.

15. When a Pastoral Charge becomes vacant during the Conferenceyear through death or other emergency, the Presbytery concerned shallconfer with the Charge itself or withits constitutional representatives (Official Board), and thereafter may arrange a supply for the remainder ofthe Conference year.

16. The Settlement Committee shallreceive from the Secretary of theConference the names of all the Pastoral Charges, together with the ministers on the rolls of the Presbyterieswhich constitute the Conference. Also,it shall receive from the President ofthe Conference the names of all ministers transferred into and out of theConference.

17. A Minister called or invited toa Pastoral Charge in another Conference must be regularly transferredthereto before he can be appointedby the Settlement Committee.

18. The Settlement Committee shallreport a complete list of its appointments to the Conference before theclose of its sessions.

dressed the three judges. "YourHonors, before we proceed with thistrial the defense would challenge thepresence of his Honor, Auburn Liberal, the presiding judge, on theground that he is prejudiced; of hisHonor, John Bellringer, on the groundthat he is not properly qualified; andhis Honor, Izzy Yesman, on theground that he is interested in MissFelicia Board, the plaintiff."

As Mr. Bible was speaking thepresiding judge gazed about the roomwith his fine mild eyes. He had amost disconcerting habit, however, ofrolling his tongue and showing histeeth as a wolf about to seize its victim. When the attorney had finishedhe said, "It is indeed malicious toaccuse the presiding judge of prejudice. What difference does it makewho sits on this bench? Even withsuch a fair trial as this, you surelydo not expect to be acquitted in this


..

,

Christian court! It is most un-Christian for you to disparage the presenceof Mr. Bellringer here. It is true hebegan his legal career while a janitor,but if there is any question as to howhe came to this high position wehereby qualify him now to sit on thiscase. Inasmuch as the Supreme Judicatory has already decided againstyour client (without at all prejudicingthe case, of course) you ought to begrateful that he is willing to give hisvaluable time to see that she is honorably convicted. In regard to Mr. Yesman, it is preposterous to say thatthis faith ful and loyal man is undulyinterested in the fair young plaintiff."Whereupon those present turned tolook at the flattered woman who was,however, apparently finding it difficult to keep her once vivacious spirit."Even if he is," the judge continued,"is that our fault? No, he will sit onthis case and I am sure will judge itas fairly as any man on this bench.But we will be glad to give you anopportunity to speak a little later, mydear," he said turning to the attractive young defendant. "The case willproceed."

Ernest Phlunky, the clerk of thecourt, began reading the charges.

CHARGE I. Miss Felicia Boardcharges you, Miss Faith Board, anindependent and unrelated person,with alienating the affections of Mr.Price B. Terian, a certain friend ofthe said Miss Felicia Board.

Specification 1. For the last severalyears past Miss Faith Board has accepted and encouraged the attentionsand interest of Mr. Price B. Terianwhich have been devoted to the saidFelicia Board.

Evidence: On March 25, 1935, Mr.Terian was seen giving Miss FaithBoard certain gifts which Miss FeliciaBoard had expected for herself. Thecrime was made all the more offensiveby the fact that Miss Faith Boardused them for sending bread to somestarving Chinese, who should havebeen fed, if at all, by the half-bakedbread of the Modern Baking Co. andshipped by the Union Enterprises,Inc.

Specification 2. The presence ofMiss Faith Board aggravates the unfortunate loss of confidence Mr. P.Terian once placed in Miss FeliciaBoard, thereby disturbing Miss Felicia's peace of mind.

Evidence: April 11, 1933. The de-

fendant told Mr. P. Terian certain"unfounded" facts about the unfaithfulness of Miss Felicia Board, pointing out certain changes in her conduct and saying that her complexionwas due to modern cosmetics.

CHARGE II. Miss Faith Board ischarged with contempt and rebellionagainst the wise and superior decisions of Gen. A. Sembly, U.S.A.and Ilygal Mandate, father and stepmother of Miss Felicia Board.

Specification 3. Miss Faith Boardhas persistently refused to leave, desist, and forbear in her interests toward Mr. Price B. Terian, havingcontinued to encourage him to sendbread to starving Chinese and others,through her.

Evidence: Letters of Gen. A. Sembly, Nos. 1934, 1935, telling the de-:fendant her attentions toward Mr.Terian were undesired and objectionable to the General and his new wife.

CHARGE III. Miss Faith Board ischarged with making slanderous andoffensive remarks concerning thenoble work of Miss Felicia Board.

Specification 4. On occasions toonumerous to mention Miss FaithBoard has spoken of the plaintiff's"going modern."

Evidence: Letter of Gen. A. Sernbly, U.S.A., absolutely disproving suchcharges to his own satisfaction.

Following this the first witness wascalled. She was Mrs. True Lee Blind,nurse of Miss Felicia, on whose shoulder she had been weeping, but nowshe walked majestically to the witnessbox. She testified that her mistresshad led a blameless life, and wasworthy of the fullest confidence. This,she concluded, was especially so because all her ancestors were good andfaithful people. On cross-examinationthe defense questioned her concerning the all too evident fact of the use

'of modern cosmetics by Miss Felicia.The court, however, ruled this out oforder since it had already been dealtwith by her father, Gen. A. Sembly.When asked why the defendant wasnot allowed to prove the truth of herallegedly untrue statements, the courtruled that it was not relevant to thecase.

Mr. Olin A. Fogg was called next.He said Miss Faith Board had beena premature child and had had a hardtime getting on in life. He had triedto tell her that she ought to bringformal charges against the plaintiff

in an orderly way to the variouscourts at her disposal, and not toaccept the attentions of Mr. P. Terianuntil she had sent Miss Felicia to jail.All that he could recollect of her replywas something to the effect that itwould only result in more "whitewash" for Miss Felicia.

The next witness was a waiter inthe Bide-A-Wee Restaurant who hadformerly served faithfully in thehousehold of Miss Faith Board. Hegave his name as Tim Morris Turnaway and began by saying, "If wemistake not Miss Felicia Board is notso bad as she is painted. On the otherhand Miss Faith Board is most indiscreet in permitting the attentions ofMr. P. Terian to go to the extent ofarousing the ire of the hot temperedGen. A. Sembly." On cross-examination he was asked what remedy hewould suggest. The witness turnedpale as he looked at the florid Generaland said in a trembling voice, "Thebest thing for all concerned would befor Miss Faith Board to speedilycommit suicide."

The prosecutor, Mr. Church MacHine, having felt sufficient evidencewas presented, rested his case. Thepresiding judge then turned to askthe defendant what her plea was. Ina clear voice she pled not guilty toall the charges.

After this dramatic' incident Mr.H. Bible called Miss Connie Stutionality but before she got to the witnessbox the presiding judge said, "Wedo not like the looks of this witnessso we will not hear her. Do you haveany other witnesses, Mr. Bible?"

Taken aback by such procedure,1\1r. Bible replied, "Since you willnot hear this witness I would like toquote from 'Faith and Discipline' ourbook of law."

"Oh, I am sure it will be too dry,"the judge answered with a yawn, "besides I am to speak to the Associationfor the Advancement of ChristianLiberty tonight. I am sure it WIll bequite unnecessary for you to say anything further, Mr. Bible. In the caseof our prosecutor he needs to saynothing more. Whether Gen. A. Sembly was acting within his powers ornot, is something we need not to consider. Surely it is not expected thatthis court should put the law-a meretechnical limit of power-above theorders of such an eminent man asGen. A. Sembly.


Modernism and the Board ofChristian Education

PART VIIISummer Conferences and Leadership Training

By the REV. ROBERT L. ATWELL

Then turning to his colleagues hecontinued, "I am sure it has alreadyoccurred to you that we are expectednot to consider the testimony and todisregard the evidence in this case.With this in mind how do you decidethis case?"

The judges replied firmly, "Guilty."

"Quite so," agreed the presidingjudge. "The defendant will rise. Isentence you, Miss Faith Board, to asuspended suspension from the towerof the Presbyterian Church and ifat any time it is our pleasure we willspring the trap and you will receive

A CCORDING to the Twelfth An'" nual Report of the Board ofChristian Education (p. 42), one partof its program is "To Lead the Churchin the Training of a Consecrated andEfficient Volunteer Leadership." Thisis done through Summer Conferencesand Leadership Training. One canscarcely estimate the tremendous influence which Summer Conferencesexert yearly on something more than8,000 of our young people. Becauseyouth is such a plastic age and because these youths enter into programswith such zeal and eagerness, attendance at a Summer Conference mouldscharacter, for weal or woe. Likewisethat type of Leadership Trainingwhich is provided is bound to determine, very largely, the attitude ofthose who are even now assumingleadership in our church. Realizing,in virtue of these very facts, the importance of this work, it is the purpose of this article to examine theProgram of the Board of ChristianEducation in this department to seewhether it may properly be calledChristian.

Obviously it is impossible in thisarticle to make a detailed study eitherof the curriculum of each of the 82Summer Conferences or of all thematerials used in the various Leadership Training courses. However, thestatement of the Board's Twelfth An-

your just punishment. However, wehope that you will acknowledge yoursins, repent of the grievous error ofthinking that the Gospel should bepresented under non-official auspices,and be a loyal supporter of our dearMiss Felicia Board and her wise oldfather also in all that he may (nowor ever) command you to do. Maythe blessed peace which we have beenenjoying in this fellowship draw uscloser together in our mutual serviceto the Master, and further the teaching of our fellow-men to practiceredeeming love. The Court will beadjourned with prayer."

nual Report (p. 21) that movementsdeveloped in other denominationssimilar to Youth Spiritual Emphasis"have merged their flow in a greatunited Youth Movement known as'Christian Youth Building aNewWorld,''' and the added informationthat the groups cooperating are theInternational Council of ReligiousEducation, the International Societyof Christian Endeavor, The FederalCouncil of Churches of Christ inAmerica, the YM.CA., the Y.W.CA.,the Council of Church Boards ofEducation, and the Christian YouthCouncil of North America, leads oneto expect a very inclusive programindeed-one which has been purgedof the last remnants of anything asexclusive as historic Christianity, oranything as definite as the system oftruth set forth in the WestminsterConfession of Faith. This expectationis heightened by the statement that"in planning for leadership trainingcurriculums the Board cooperates withother denominations through the International Council of Religious Education." (p. 45.)

Even though we begin a study ofthe materials used with such expectations we are literally shocked by theblatant presentation of another gospel, which is not another, found therein. Space permits that we examinebut three pamphlets, all of which were

widely used at conferences this lastsummer and which were recommendedfor such use by the Board of Christian Education. They are Youth atWorship, Youth Action in PersonalReligious Living and Our Share inBuilding aNew W orld, The first ispublished by our Board of ChristianEducation and the latter two by theInternational Council of ReligiousEducation.

Personal Religious LivingAt first glance we are pleased to

note (Twelfth Annual Report, p. 21)that "both the Youth Spiritual Emphasis and Christian Youth BuildingaNew World start where Ch ristianity has always started-namely, withthe individual." In pursuance of this,the first area of life to which particular attention is given is "developinga program of Personal Religious Living." This is likewise set forth in OurShare in Building a l'/ ew World asthe first of nine projects. Our pleasure however utterly vanishes as weturn to Youth A ction in Personal Religious Living and read under theheading, "Steps to Creative Living,"the statement from Kirby Page:

"The hopeful fact is however that we playclimb upward. The occasional and fleetingmoments of insight and power that all ofus have known may be transformed intomore frequent and enduring periods ofillumination and victory. The high achievements of persons like Gandhi and Kagawain our own age bear eloquent testimonyto the ability of modern man to recoverthe spirit and technique of Jesus of Nazareth and Francis of Assisi. Observationand experience have convinced me that thefollowing steps, if taken, lead to higherground:

Budget your time.Get under the load of human need and

lift.Prepare for a creative life work.Explore the realm of silence.Participate in corporate Worship.Live in the presence of beauty.Pitch your friendship on a high level.Read great biographies.Pluck out the offending eye.Resolutely run the risks and joyously

accept the consequences of followingyour ideals.

Make a Check List I"

This scarcely requires comment. Theparalleling of Gandhi, Kagawa andFrancis of Assisi with Christ is suchblatant blasphemy as to overshadoweven the wide difference between theprograms of Gandhi and Kagawa onthe one hand and anything remotelyresembling historic Christianity on


...

the other. The absolute lack of mention of infallible Scripture, of sin, orof need of a Savior is perhaps therefore not so surprising. It might besafely added that a reading of theexplanations of the eleven steps canbut deepen the chagrin of one whodoes accept the system of truth taughtin the Scriptures.

Attitude Toward BiblePerhaps nothing is as revealing as

the attitude of these publications toward the Bible. In the present conflict between Christianity and Liberalism the question of the place accorded the Scriptures is invariably thetouchstone. Loyalty to the Scripturesis paramount. "The Holy Scripturesof the Old and New Testament arethe Word of God, the only infalliblerule of faith and practice." Has ourBoard of Christian Education takenthis position in her Summer Conferences and Leadership Training? Certainly the following considerationsshout "No!"

Youth at Worship (p. 19) advisesfor Scripture reading such versionsas Kent's "Shorter Bible," Moffat'sand Goodspeed's. Youth Action inPersonal Religious Living (p. 15)agrees: "Modern translations of theBible bring help to many people. Itshould be remembered that thesetranslations do not change the Bible,but in the majority of cases they makeclear passages in which the meaningis obscure." We leave to the judgment of anyone who has studied theseversions whether or not they changethe Bible.

Clearer and more damaging, if possible, is the exhortation in Y outh. atWorship: "In using the Psalms withthese age groups the ethical contentof the passage should be carefullytested. Those sections from the OldTestament should be read that mostfully accord with Jesus' conception ofGod" (p. 20). Here is the AuburnAffirmationist's attitude with a vengeance lOur leaders should determinewhether or not the ethical teaching ofthe Psalms is fit for our young people.Moreover, much of the Old Testamentmust be rejected because it does notaccord with Jesus' conception of God.Do such suggestions cause you to cryout in sorrow or in righteous indignation, my friends? Yet such is theattitude toward Scripture which isfostered by the literature used in the

Summer Conferences. And this is byno means an isolated reference.

In Our Share in Bltilding aNewWorld (p. 23), we find three suggestions for coming to a tentative decision concerning what a ChristianWorld would be like. They are:

"a. By studying the teachings ofJesus.

"b. By exploring the writings ofsuch outstanding social leadersas Rauschenbusch, Kagawa,Page, Eddy, Jane Addams.

"c. By considering the agencieswhich would be needed in building such a world, for example,the World Court."

To say nothing else of these suggestions, certainly such a summary conveys the idea that any part of theBible aside from that which is printedin red in some Testaments is of littlevalue. In other words, the liberal viewof separating the teachings of Jesusfrom those of Paul and from the OldTestament is here adopted.Even though nothing wrong beyond

this divisive, destructive attitude toward God's Holy Word were foundin these publications which are usedas the basis for training our youngpeople, the whole program would necessarily be condemned.

A Personal God?Nowhere in these publications is the

idea of a personal, self-conscious Godclearly set forth. In Y outh. at W orship we are given as the last test ofeffective public prayer: "An opportunity for bringing one's life in contact with the vast spiritual resourcesof the universe that we know as God"(p. 19). Such a concept of God is necessarily as high as these programscan reach simply because they arelimited to a god whom they can discover, and apparently never havethought of the God who must graciously reveal Himself. Dr. Machen haswell defined their difficulty in TheChristian Faith in the Modern World,p. 15: "A divine being that could bediscovered by my efforts, apart fromHis gracious will to reveal Himself tome and to others, would be either amere name for a certain aspect ofman's own nature, a God that wecould find within us, or else at best amere passive thing that would be subject to investigation like the substances that are analyzed in a labora-

tory." That we are not overstatingthe case when we say they have limited themselves to a god who can bediscovered is shown, for example, bythe statement of purpose on Our Sharein Bltilding a New World, p. 17: "Toassist young people in discovering thereality of God," and in Youth. at W orship, in the program for Intermediates, p. 33: "The Discovery of God."Canst thou by searching find out God?

Theological EmphasisOne of the interesting features of

Y ouih. at Worship is a section onHymns, pp. 14 and 15. As we read,"The hymn tunes should be majestic,simple and artistic" we rejoice thathere at last is something of which wecan approve, but alas, our joy is shortlived for further on is this paragraph:

"The Theology of the hymns should beChristian and social, and the conception ofGod as Father, and men as his self-respecting children, should be presented. Manyhymns present God as a capricious tyrantand are characterized by their worn-outtheology and their selfish individualism."

Among the hymns which are saidto be characterized by an outworntheological emphasis are listed thefollowing:

We're Marching to ZionThere is a FountainSafe in the Arms of JesusRescue the PerishingOne Sweetly Solemn ThoughtHe Lifted MeIt is Well With My SoulSoftly and TenderlyTell Me the Old, Old StoryThe Church in the WildwoodThe King's Business

"There is a Fountain" is said tocontain "unwholesome imagery." Thehymns which best meet the need andoutlook of youth are said to be:

Follow the GleamI Would Be TrueThis is My Father's WorldJust as I Am, Young, Strong and FreeTrue-hearted, Whole-heartedThere is a Quest that Calls Me

One wonders if this section has notbeen prepared exclusively for thosewhose theology is Unitarian. Certainlythe hymns recommended allow no hintof youth's need of a Savior; indeed,the avowed purpose of this selectionis that they may be as close as possible to the "outlook" of youth andthe youth referred to are evidentlythose who feel that they are in needof nothing but rather that they are


perfectly able to "build a new world"in their own strength. The attitude iswell expressed on p. 19 of Youth atWorship: "Adolescents do not prayfor power equal to their tasks buttasks equal to their power."

Recommended BooksRevealing is the list of recomended

books found in section IV of YouthAction in Personal Religious Living.Books for devotional use are hererecommended under eleven differentheadings; under each heading thethree that are especially recommendedare starred (*). With almost unfailing regularity the recommended bookspresent the so-called "liberal" viewpoint and this is especially true ofthose which are starred. For exampleunder books about Jesus Christ, Fosdick's "The Manhood of the Master"is especially recommended. Likewisehis "The Meaning of Faith" underbooks about our beliefs, "The Meaning of Prayer" under books about themeaning of prayer, and "Twelve Testsof Character" under books about character. It is rather ironic that a churchwhose General Assembly passed thePhiladelphia Overture of 1923 nowsupports a Board of Christian Education which especially recommendsDr. Fosdick's books to her youngpeople. It would seem utterly impossible to contend that a Board whichallows the approval of such a list ofbooks to its young people is greatlyconcerned in holding to the tenets ofthe Westminster Confession of Faith.

One thing more should at least bementioned. It is the picture whichthese publications present of our Lordand Savior Jesus Christ. It is quite inkeeping with their attitude towardthe Bible, toward God, and towardman. Since youth is so perfectly ableto care for all his needs it would obviously be folly to suggest to him thathe needs a Savior, for that would indeed be "revolting to idealistic youth."Hence Christ is spoken of as "Poetseer of Galilee, as "Clearest thinkerman has known," as "Kingly servantof man's need," as "Our leader andour guide," but not as "Savior" or as"Lord."

In summary, then, is the Board ofChristian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in regardto her Summer Conferences and Leadership Training to be regarded faithful to its responsibility? The above

related evidence would seem to demand that the answer be "By nomeans!" If anyone should feel thisreview has been partisan, let himselect at random any three of thepublications recently used in our summer conferences or in leadershiptraining classes and find his heartsink as he realizes the kind of teaching which is sponsored by the Boardof Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

ESCHATALOGICAL FREEDOM

(Concluded from Page 44)

in visible glory to the earth is of theessence of the Reformed Faith. Dif-

Why Not

Introduce Us to

Your Friends?

You can still send The

Presbyterian Guardian to

your friends for two and a

half months (five issues) for

the small sum of 25c for each

subscription. The next few

issues, telling the news of

General Assembly, should be

in the hands of every mem

ber of the Presbyterian

Church in the U.S.A. Why

not share with others the

good things you enjoy? Itcosts so little, but it means

so much. Send your list to

day to:

ThePresbyterian Guardian1209 Commonwealth Bldg.

Philadelphia, Penna.

ferences over the mode in which thatreturn will take place, whether according to the pre-, post- or a-millennialview, have certainly been historicallyregarded as being within the area ofpermitted liberty. Of course the Bibledoes not teach all three views, sosomebody is wrong. But the differences are such as can be held byChristian brethren. Certainly it wouldbe folly for Christians to divide uponthis issue when we need a united frontagainst Modernism by those who trulybelieve and love the Gospel.

The series of articles by Mr. JohnMurray appearing in the GUARDIANis emphatically not to be interpretedas an effort to read pre-millenariansout of the communion of the church.Pre-millenarians are found on theBoard and in the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, on theBoard and in the staff of The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, and in the membership and staff of The PresbyterianConstitutional Covenant Union. Thesepersons believe that there is no incongruity between the Reformed Faithand belief in the pre-millennial returnof our Lord. As we understand it, thedispensationalism against which Mr.Murray will write is of a kind thatdenies the fundamental unity of theCovenant of Grace, which is an essential doctrine of the Reformed Faith.

Mr. Murray has well expressedthis when, in THE PRESBYTERIANGUARDIAN for February 3rd, he identified the form of dispensationalismagainst which he will write as that"which discovers in the several dispensations of God's redemptive revelation distinct and even contrary principles of divine procedure and thusdestroys the unity of God's dealingswith fallen mankind." To be premillennial, however, does not at allmean that one must hold this error.If anyone has the idea that the timehas come for an eschatalogical pogrom by those holding one or any ofthese views against the others, webelieve that it should be promptlydropped. With doctrines repugnantto the Reformed, Biblical Faith, nocompromise. With differences withinthe area of the Reformed system andconcerning matters not essential to it,absolute liberty.

~I

r


The Regions BeyondBy the REV. CHARLES J. WOODBRIDGE

53

V ARIOUS viewpoints with

regard to the Presbyterian missionary enterprise are beingbrought into sharpcontrast in the doctrinal controversy of

Mr. Woodbridgethe day. One of these

viewpoints is clearly indicated in anarticle which has recently been givenwide publicity in The Sunday SchoolTil1ies. The article is entitled "WhyWe Left Our Mission Board," by theRev. Albert B. Dodd. It appeared inthe April 18, 1936, issue of the Times,copies of which have been mailed tomore than a hundred thousand persons throughout the world.

According to this viewpoint purityof doctrine must be maintained inmissionary work. All cooperation withunion enterprises which sponsor ortolerate Modernism must be avoided.

Dr. Dodd makes it clear that onereason for his resignation from service under the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church inthe U.S.A. was that that Board, in itspolicies and program, represents another point of view in this matter.

What is this other point of view?The answer to this question is given

in a recent book by Dr. Cleland B.Me.Afee, retiring Secretary of theBoard. The name of the book is "TheForeign Missionary Enterprise andits Sincere Critics."

Dr. McAfee does not view withalarm or horror the betrayals of theChristian faith which have been plainlydemonstrated in union missionary institutions. He minimizes the dangersinvolved in cooperation with such institutions. According to the viewpointhe represents cooperation is essential.That is an axiom. And then, of course,there must be a doctrinal "live and letlive" attitude in the cooperation.

He writes (pp. 99, 100) : "We cannot cooperate and dictate at the sametime. We may as well settle that, firstas last. In all cooperation there is acertain amount of give-and-take whichmust be accepted.... It cannot be expeered of any joint agency that it will

The illuminating article bythe Rev. Edwin H. Rian, entitled "Unbelief in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.-15 It Recent?" has been reprinted in pamphlet form. Thisinvaluable article, originallypublished in THE INDEPENDENT BOARD BULLETIN,should be read by every wellinformed Presbyterian. Copiesmay be secured by addressing The Independent Boardfor Presbyterian Foreign Missions, 12 South 12th Street,Philadelphia, Pa.

always meet the full approval of allits constituent members. In the verybest of books (the Bible, for Christians excepted) there are certain tobe passages with which one disagrees.Yet these very passages often serveone's deepest needs by stimulatingthought and evoking judgment. ...So it is with all forms of cooperation."

The context in which this quotationoccurs indicates that, while the authorrealizes that in extreme cases cooperation might not be desirable, in general cooperation is essential. And eventhe Modernism involved in such cooperation is really harmless. On thecontrary, he hints, it is apt to be intellectually stimulating!

Thanks be to God that there arestill hundreds of Presbyterians whohave no use for this pacificistic attitude toward the enemies of the crossof Christ. The Word of God teachesemphatically that all unholy allianceswith the works of darkness must beshunned.

* * * * *In this connection a second major

difference of viewpoint emerges.Some Presbyterians are members of

the denomination because they areconvinced that the Reformed Faith istrue. They could not conscientiouslybe members of any ecclesiastical bodyin which this Faith, which so gloriously sets forth what is taught in the

Bible, is denied. They are Presbyterians by conviction. Naturally theyare determined to see the ReformedFaith, as over against Arminianism,or any other "ism, asm, or spasm,"propagated on the mission field.

They are opposed to Modernism ofany sort. But they are also opposed toany type of teaching in which theReformed Faith is repudiated. In otherwords, they are true, Bible-believing,consistent, conscientious Presbyterians.

Then there is the opposite point ofview. Probably its best known Presbyterian exponent is Robert E. Speer,Senior, Secretary of the Board ofForeign Missions of the PresbyterianChurch in the U.S.A.

He holds no brief for transportingthe Reformed Faith, commonly knownas Calvinism, across the ocean. He hasno hesitation in advocating, for example, that the work of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in Chinabe handed over to the modernistChurch of Christ in China, an organization which, far from being devotedto the Reformed Faith, represents inits membership the widest assortmentof doctrinal opinions.

Dr. Speer writes: "And our doctrine, as well as our polity, will not,in reality, stand this transportationacross the seas. Take Arminianismand Calvinism, for example. What isthe use of importing that controversyand division? ... I remember readinga little while ago in a Methodist magazine published in China, a lament onthe part of some earnest missionary,that there was not a single volume ofSimon-pure Arminian theology inChina. Everyone of them was tinctured with Calvinism. I was very gladwhen I read that lament, and I hopedthat it was equally true that there wasnot a Simon-pure volume of Calvinistic theology in China, but that everyone of them was tinctured with Arminianism, and I hope a pretty heavysaturation of it also." (From an address delivered at the Men's NationalMissionary Congress, Chicago, 1910.)

What shall we think of such anutterance as this? To the loyal Presbyterian it is truly astonishing.


The Children's Corner

By MARIAN BISHOP BOWER

(Grown-ups, Please Skip)Illustrated by ESTHER STEARNS BOWER

Miss Bower

TH E trouble all began with Jimmy's

walking in his sleepand Joan's leaving thescissors on the floor.It's rather scary towake up in the nightstanding on a pair ofscissors in the middle

of the living room. But when theclock struck two, he realized withgreat joy that it was morning andMother's birthday. Now he could goto the foot of the steps and yell,"Happy birthday," but even Jimmydecided that that might not be sucha good idea.

Jimmy jumped up from the floorin glee. He'd get ahead of Joan thistime. He'd get the birthday breakfast.He could scramble eggs and maketoast and squeeze oranges. Jimmytiptoed to the kitchen.

The oranges were easy to do. Thetoast and eggs were harder. Onewould burn while he was tending tothe other and it was much easier toland an egg on the floor or the stovethan to get it in the pan. Jimmy gothungry, then hungrier, and toast andeggs and orange juice-even slightlyblack toast and eggs-were betterthan starving. Ten minutes later hegazed sadly at the table. The eggsand toast had vanished and therewere no more eggs to cook.

He felt a little queer. MaybeMother wouldn't like this much. Maybe she'd like flowers. There weretulips and columbines along the walk.The moon shone brightly and Joanhad never given Mother flowers.

Now, upstairs, Mother had beendreaming. She dreamed that it wasmorning and that breakfast was allready. She sat down at the table toeat, but just as she sat down thetable and all the food vanished. Shewoke up with her hand reaching outtoward the food. As she turned overto go back to sleep she realized thatshe could smell something very likeburnt toast! Mother sat up quickly.She thought probably the house was

on fire. She never had known thatburning houses smelled like burningtoast, but then she had never been ina burning house before.

She slipped out of bed and raninto Joan's room. Joan was sleepingsoundly and there were no flames orsmoke to be seen. Jimmy's room wasnext and then Mother was frightenedfor, of course, Jimmy was not there.

Mother rushed back and shookDaddy violently. When he heardabout Jimmy's being gone and thehouse on fire, he jumped out quickly,too. The light in the kitchen guidedthem to the right place. Jimmy, whowas just coming in, looked up in

"Happy Birthday," he shouted

surprise and some alarm. Then hesmiled at Mother. "Happy birthday,Mother," he shouted.

There was no answering light ineither Daddy's or Mother's eyes.Daddy began: "Come here, youngman, and explain yourself. First, whatare you doing down here at this timeof night?"

Jimmy gulped. "It's time of morning and I just woke up. I was dreaming I was in the living room and Iwas."

Mother came next. "And the oranges and the toast and the eggs allover everything?"

"That's your birthday breakfast.Only it was getting cold, so I wasgetting hungry, so I ate it."

Mother was sad. (Didn't she understand that it was all for her?) "But,

Jimmy, how could you pick my prizetulips ?"

Then Jimmy looked at his hands inhorror. How could he have done it?He and Joan had watered thoseflowers and watched them and lovedthem almost as much as Mother did.They were going to win Mother fivedollars at the flower show and theywere all going to the seashore for awhole day with the prize money-s-andnow he had ruined it all.

"I only did it because 1 love you,Mother. I didn't mean to get theseflowers," he sobbed.

Mother still looked very sad. "Littleboy," she said, "the best way to showMother that you love her is to dothe things that you know she wantsyou to do, and don't do the things shedoesn't want you to do."

While Daddy locked the door,Mother carried Jimmy upstairs andkissed him and tucked him in, but hecouldn't go to sleep right away. Hehad to make up his mind to do a hardthing. Uncle James had given himfive dollars and Jimmy had been saving it for a bicycle-he was almostbig enough to ride one. When hedid decide what to do he went rightto sleep and never woke up until heheard Joan's loud calls of "Happybirthday, Mother."

But Mother smiled at Jimmy at thebreakfast table, for she had the envelope that held Jimmy's preciousfive dollars. This is what Joan hadprinted for Jimmy: "To mother. forthe see shore. and Irn going to dowhat you say." And Jimmy began byhelping to clean up the kitchen.

* * * * *Jesus said to His disciples. "If ye

love me, keep my commandments."If we have given Him our hearts wemust find out what He wants us todo. We must find that out by askingHim and by reading His Word. LearnGod's Word, then do what He says.Find these verses and learn them thismonth: Psalm 119: 11; John 2: 5 (thelatter half); John 14: 15.


Lift Up Your HeartBy the REV. DAVID FREEMAN

55

"But the Comforter, which is theHoly Ghost, whom the Father willsend in my name, he shall teach youall things, and bring all things toyour remembrance, whatsoever Ihave said unto you." John I4: 26.

Let us note that this promised visitant was to come in Christ's stead,that is, in His name and place. Weturn to the Gospels to see what thepresence of Jesus meant to the disciples. He was the source of all theirhope and consolation. They saw Hiscountenance. They witnessed Hismighty works. They heard Him speakas never man spake. They enjoyedHis love. Over them was His continual protection. His hand was alwaysstretched forth to help in time ofneed.

Now what the actual presence ofJesus meant to the disciples, thepresence of the Comforter wouldmean to them. All that they had inthe personal presence of Christ whileHe tarried among them they wouldhave in the presence with them ofthe Holy Spirit. "I go away," He said,but they would not lose by His departure but would rather gain. Fully,gloriously, and increasingly, the divine Paraclete would supply to disciples the place of a present Jesus.Rich and blessed was the conditionof those who walked with Him inthe way but richer and more blessedis the state of everyone who is nowtruly united to Christ.

"Think what Spirit dwells within thee,What a Father's smile is thine,

What a Savior died to win thee:Child of heaven, shouldst thou repine?"

Mr. Freeman

designated anan intercessor,

TH E RE never camefrom the lips of

our blessed Saviorm 0 r e remarkablewords of grace.

The Paraclete ispromised to the disciples. The HolyGhost is by this nameadvocate, a monitor,and a consoler.

He who was promised by the Sonwould come from the Father, who isthe fount of all excellency, the Godof all grace and redemption. What aninsight this affords the devout believer into the glory and harmony ofthe Divine Persons in the Godhead.

The Holy Spirit is not a creature,nor a power, nor an effluence, nor anagency, but a co-equal and co-eternalPerson in the Divine being. He isthe Spirit of the Father and the Son.Out of an eternal and ineffable lovethe Father, the fountain of redeemingmercy, sends the Holy Spirit to complete the work of grace in believerswhich was procured for us in Christ'satoning death.

This promised Gift comes in Christ'sname and at His request. Our blessedRedeemer, though ascended to heavenin His human nature, is not indifferent to the interests of His people,"seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us." There is no graceor mercy bestowed upon us that isnot the result of Christ's agency forus in the court of heaven. He prevails with the Father for us. BecauseHe perfectly carries on His work inthe invisible Heavens there is procured for us the righteousnesswrought by His suffering and obedience.

As High Priest he forgets no oneof His chosen, but looks down withan individual regard on each of Hispeople, with a wise and mercifulreference to every particular case ofwant or affliction.

"Though now ascended up on high,He bends on earth a brother's eye;Partaker of the human name,He knows the frailty of our frame."

Does it not cheer the saint to knowthat the Lord Jesus Christ makes himthe subject of His particular prayers?And is it some small gift the heavenlyIntercessor craves for us? Whatmore could He desire us to have thanthe Holy Ghost? It is this gift forwhich He prays. Is there aught beside that we need when there is be-

stowed upon us the Comforter? Hewho has this gift has all.

This is high and wonderful revelation indeed. Men of the world listenand take to themselves these marvelous benefits. In these days there ismuch claim to the possession of theHoly Spirit. There is hardly a promise of God's word that unholy handswill not lay hold upon.

To any who lightly claim theHoly Spirit be it known that He issent only in consideration of Christ'svicarious work. There would havebeen no sending of the Holy Ghostbut for the atoning death of the Sonof God. The gift of the Comforter isa purchased gift. It is only ours because of the application to us ofChrist's saving work. The blood thatwas shed on the cross must be appliedto the heart first. Of a surety thecommunication of the Holy Spirit isbut a carrying forward in heavenof the work which Christ began onearth. It is the same Christ who diedto bear our just wrath and curse,and no other, who now works by theSpirit in the hearts of His people.

As a teacher and guide the HolySpirit is to supply the place of Christ.What the Lord Jesus once did withHis own lips He now accomplishesby the Paraclete. But what does theadorable Spirit now teach us? Heteaches what Christ taught. He takesof the things of Christ, and showsthem unto us.

The truth is fully revealed in theWord, and what is beyond or besidethe Word the Holy Spirit will notteach us. Yet the Word is not enoughto our natural and darkened understanding. Only as the Holy Spirittakes, shows, and impresses it uponour minds and hearts is the truthefficacious to our comfort and blessing.

How poor we are without theComforter. But His coming makes"our dull minds with rapture glow,"and our "human hearts with love o'erflow."


The Sunday School LessonsBy the REV. L. CRAIG LONG

Mr. Lonlr

June 7. "Jesus in Gethsemane."Luke 22:39-53.

W H E N it says inverse 39 that

Jesus "came out," itmeans that He camefrom the Upper Roomwhere He had instituted the Sacramentof the Lord's Supper.Judas was not in the

group (John 13: 30). Jesus' custom ofgoing to the Mount of Olives indicates that no strategy was used byHim to avoid meeting the betrayer.Gethsemane had been selected as "theplace" before the foundation of theworld. Jesus came to the world according to predetermined plan, andwhen the enemy hour arrived and"the power of darkness," He movedtoward "the place" and His elevendisciples were likewise drawn to theplace by the secret power of God.

Verse 40 describes the exactness ofthe place to which Jesus took the disciples and (b) the warning that Hegave them. Jesus knew "all things"and He knew the temptations thatwere soon to beset the eleven; this iswhy He warned them to pray. Prayermust be the human occupation in offsetting the temptations of life. Jesuswarmed against "entering into temptation." Jesus was tempted butHe never

. "entered into temptation."The difference between man's in

ability to perform in the flesh thatwhich the man's spirit is willing toattempt and the ability of Jesus bothto will and to do the proper thing inthe time of temptation is demonstratedby Christ's leaving the disciples to goapart 'from spectators to pray. Thefact that Jesus prayed and was immediately thereafter strengthened byan angel sent from God serves to indicate why the disciples' failure topray resulted in such weakness thatthey eventually "forsook Him andfled."

Compare Moses' prayer in Exodus. 32: 32 and Paul's prayer in Romans9: 3 with Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. All three prayed according tothe human measure of desire at that

instant, and yet their prayers werebut the outcry of souls committingoverwhelming trouble and sorrow toGod the Father. None of them expected or desired the unalterable planof salvation to be changed. I have nodoubt but that the "cup" of whichJesus spoke was the cup of the wrathof God against sinners,-a cup ofwhich Jesus was unjustly partaking.The wrath of God was not beingpoured out against Him because ofany sin that He had committed butbecause He was voluntarily bearingthe sins of the elect.

It is inconceivable that Jesus shouldmerely fear human death. Thereforewe must believe that the agony ofGethsemane was due not only to theshrinking that His pure and holynature was bound to feel in the presence of death which is sin's great triumph over humanity, but also to thehorror that Jesus experienced as Heanticipated bearing in His body thesin of the world. We need not apologize for Christ's earthly sorrow. Thesa tis faction 0 f Christ included a shameful suffering in the flesh and a complete propitiatory separation from Godthe Father. Christ's sinless human nature experienced the fears, weaknessesand sorrows which are peculiar to theflesh. But the Word (see John 1: 14),who was united to Christ's humanity,gave a degree of strength worthy ofa person of the eternal Godhead. Wecannot duplicate or imitate Christ'sGethsemane experiences because ourflesh is affected by sin, whereasChrist's weakness was without anytaint of sin. Christ's sorrow, tremblingand fear came as He faced the awfultribunal of God.

Verse 44 continues the descriptionby declaring that Jesus was in anagony and that 'He prayed more earnestly. "His sweat became as it weregreat drops of blood falling downupon the ground." Was He sweatingblood because He was afraid to diethe sort of death that His prophetshad already experienced in complacency and peace? Certainly if we hadto believe this we would also have tothink of Christ as being a coward.

Therefore, we must emphasize the factthat His sweat became blood becauseof the terrible agony of His mind andheart which was increasingly contemplating a death which was the

. Just for the unjust. This resembledvicariously the death of the people ofSodom and Gomorrah and the peoplewho perished in the flood in Noah'sday rather than of ,the prophets ofGod.

Verses 45 and 46 include (a) thefinish of the prayer, (b) the return tothe disciples and, (c) what was probably the last instruction which Jesusgave His disciples before crucifixion(unless "Suffer ye thus far" in Luke22: 51 is the last word of instructionbefore crucifixion). The most dreadful experience that Jesus had inGethsemane was probably the treasonof Judas who betrayed Him with akiss. Psalm 41: 9 prophesied that thebetrayer would be one who had beena "familiar friend" and who had eatenof "my bread." In Psalm 2: 12 we areadmonished to "Kiss the Son, lest Hebe angry and ye perish in the way"but certainly we are not to kiss asJudas kissed the Son. Our affectionfor Jesus Christ is to be sincere andtrue.

Jesus describes the coming of thebetrayer and the soldiers as being anevent which indicated by their preparation ,that they came out as against arobber, with swords and staves. Hederided their sham bravery by twoproofs of their weakness: (a) theywere powerless to stretch out theirhands against him prior to this hour,and, (b) they were able to take Himnow only because it was by God'spermissive will to be their hour and"the power of darkness."

Horace Bushnell and others havetortured the meaning of Gethsemaneby making it appear that whateverbenefits we have derived from Christ'sagony are but the influences of a goodmoral life. We must emphasize thefact that no mother or father or human being can imitate Christ's Gethsernane experience and we would haveno hope of salvation if Jesus had nothad His Gethsemane.

J

~I

I

JjIf

J1I

},•


June 14, "Jesus Crucified:' Luke23:33-46.The place which is called "The

skull" was evidently the place whereall crucifixions took place. No doubtthere was an evil stench in the placeas a result of the decaying bodies ofthe murders and robbers and enemiesof society who had expiated for theircrimes against society by their death.When Jesus was brought to this placeit was in company with two men whohad been duly convicted of crimes.They were nailed to crosses on eitherside of the cross upon which Jesuswas nailed. The event is horribleenough when we examine it as having been executed according to thenormal procedure rather than attempt to find that extra torture wasapplied in the case of Christ. Theextra pain in the case of Christ wasdue to the fact that His senses werenot adulterated by the slightest bitof sin and He was therefore able tofeel the suffering more completely.

(2) "Father forgive them; for theyknow not what they do." We mustrealize that Jesus knew the plan ofGod; He knew that it included Hisresurrection and ascension. He knewthat on Pentecost day Peter wouldpreach to some of the same peoplewho were now in rash zeal crucifyingHim. It is probable that He was thinking especially of those whom He knewto be blinded for a season (in orderthat the work of redemption might beaccomplished) but whom Jesus knewto be among the Elect of God andwho would therefore readily believewhen the Gospel would be preached tothem on Pentecost Day by Peter. It isnot possible that Jesus would haveasked God to save those whose nameswere not in the Lamb's Book. If onlywe Christians (some of whom havehad the rudest treatment from Churchmen who ought to have welcomed theGospel which we preached) couldleave all vengeance to God as Jesusdid.

(3) "And parting His garmentamong them, they cast lots." This fulfills Psalm 22: 18. Here we are causedto consider our Saviour scripped ofHis garments and hanging naked uponthe cross for us. WHY? He did itthat we might be eternally clothedwith His righteousness and have "thewedding garment" to fit us for the"marriage feast of the Lamb."

(4) "And the people stood behold-

ing ..." Mobs have done much in thehistory of the nations of this worldto mould the course of rulers. Themob that stood around the cross didnothing to discourage the rulers; theystood beholding. The cause of JesusChrist in the Presbyterian Church inthe U.S.A. will have encountered itsgreatest crisis before this SundaySchool lesson is studied on June 14thand the tragedy of tragedies will bethe Presbyterian laymen "who stoodbeholding" while their real doctrinalposition was being written with an indelible pencil against them even asthe Pentecostal sermon by Peter denounced that mob with the words:"Ye by the hands of lawless men didcruci fy and slay" (Acts 2: 23). Therulers and soldiers mocked Him andsuggested that if He was the Christof God He should save Himself.

Covenant UnionConvention

FIRST annual convention of

The Presbyterian Consti

tutional Covenant Union,

which may possibly be an

historic and important gath

ering. will be held in Phila

delphia, at a place to be

announced, beginning June

II th and probably ending

June 14th with a great pub

lic meeting. Speakers will be

announced later.

It is hoped that chapters

will let the office of the

Covenant Union know con

cerning the number of dele

gates they expect to send,

and as soon as possible, the

names of the delegates. Ar

rangements for hotel accom

modations will upon request

be made for the delegates

by the central office.

What they were actually inviting Himto do was prove His deity at the expense of our salvation hopes. If Hehad come down from the cross toprove His deity He would have failedin keeping the plan of salvation andwe would have had no Saviour. Thetaunts of the unregenerated oughtnever to be permitted to move us toa medium or pacifistic course of witnessing. James 4: 4 teaches thatfriendship with the world is enmitywith God. This is why Jesus did notcome down from the cross.

(5) "This is the King of the Jews."This, according to John 19: 19, waswritten above Christ's head in Latin,in Hebrew and in Greek. This was bythe providence of God and certainlywas God's way of having all nationsknow that the Messiah of the Jewishnation had been crucified.

(6) Verses 39-43 describe the tworobbers, one of whom illustrates theinability of the natural man ,to besoftened in his attitude toward Godeven in the face of execution; theother illustrates the regeneratingpower of God in the heart of a dyingrobber. That this latter fact is trueis indicated by (a) his rebuke of therobber who railed at Christ and, (b)his self-commitment to the grace ofChrist in the Kingdom which he confessed would be the heritage of Christbeyond the cross. That Jesus said,"Today shalt thou be with me inParadise" refutes all Romanism andModernism. This robber had no goodworks in which to trust, He simplybelieved on "Him whom God hathsent," even Jesus Christ our Lord.

(7) Verses 44-46 describe two miracles which attended Christ's death:(a) the sun's light failed in broadday-time, and, (b) the veil of thetemple was rent in the midst. Hebrews10 :20 describes the flesh of Christ asthe veil through which we have access into the holy place. This beingthe case there is no longer need forthe veil in the earthly temple whichwas merely ,to portray the flesh ofChrist; this is why God destroyedthe veil of the temple of Jerusalemwhen God's elect had finally gainedaccess to God by the shed blood ofChrist. The miracles were God's wayof witnessing to the world that Christwas His Son and that His son hadsatisfied the demands of divine justice and had made atonement for thesins of God's elect.


ASSEMBLY'S JUDICIALCOMMISSION MEETS

ISSUES JOINEDTotalitarian Versus

Constitutional Church

TH E Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly of

the Presbyterian Church in theU.S.A. sat from April 16th to 21stin Columbus, Ohio. It heard cases inthe "Colonel Lindbergh Room" at theDeshler-Wallick Hotel there. Beforeit came seven complaints and fivejudicial cases from the Synod ofPennsylvania, and four complaintsfrom the Synod of New Jersey. Everyone of the items was an outgrowthof the so-called "mandate" of the 1934General Assembly against The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.

The Synod of Pennsylvania, respondent in each of the cases fromits jurisdiction, was represented bythree Auburn Affirmationists fromPhiladelphia. They were the Rev.George E. Barnes, D.D., the Rev.J. A. MacCallum, D.D., and the Rev.Edward B. Shaw, D.D. The samethree persons acted as the prosecuting committee in the judicial casesagainst five Philadelphia ministersconnected with the IndependentBoard.

The Coray CaseFirst complaints argued were two

concerning the case of the Rev.Henry W. Coray, now in China asa missionary of the IndependentBoard. Mr. Coray had been pastor inthe First Church of West Pittston,Pa., in the Presbytery of Lackawanna. He had asked for dissolutionof the pastoral relation in order to goout to China, the presbytery refuseddissolution, warned him that if hewent it would erase his name fromthe roll on the ground that hehad "declared himself independent."Stoutly Mr. Coray declared that hewas not declaring himself independent,proclaimed anew his adherence to thePresbyterian Church in the U.S.A.Nevertheless the presbytery erasedhis name from its roll. This arbitrary action was upheld by the Synodof Pennsylvania's Judicial Commission.

The 'Fulton CaseThis was a complaint against the

Presbytery of Philadelphia in licensing John W. Fulton, who refused topledge implicit obedience to all futureorders of the General Assembly, butonly to those which were in accordance with the Constitution of thechurch and the Word of God. TheSynod's commission had upheld thecomplaint on the ground that in licensing him presbytery was "Sanctioning possible future rebellion." Italso attempted to nullify his ordination by declaring that the licensurehad been "stayed," without hearingthe presbytery's case for its beliefthat there was no such "stay."

The Donegal CaseThis was a complaint against the

Presbytery of Donegal for passingresolutions in which it urged supportof the official Boards as an obligation,told Church sessions not to ordainor install ruling elders who would notpromise official Board support, declared that the presbytery itselfwould refuse to license or ordaincandidates for the ministry who refused to give such pledges. Againstthis grossly extra-constitutional requirement, complaint was lodged bythe presbytery minority. The presbytery was upheld by the Synod's commission, which decided every case infavor of the "organization."

Dr. Machen's Reception byPhiladelphia

After the Rev. J. Gresham Machen,D.D., Litt.D., had been received bythe Presbytery of Philadelphia, inMarch, 1934, the then minority complained against the action, purportedto have secured the necessary onethird to act as a "stay." For a yearthe complaint was held by the Synodof Pennsylvania, was not adjudicated,while Dr. Machen was being tried inNew Brunswick Presbytery. Adjudication of the complaint would havesettled the matter of jurisdiction,which was the last thing the machinewanted-then. This year the Synod'scommission sustained the complaint,declared in effect that anyone in thepresbytery had the right to questionministers coming from other presbyteries, regardless of whether the presbytery wished to engage in anyexamination. In answer to this itwas contended by the representative

of the presbytery that examinationof a minister coming from anotherpresbytery is discretionary. If presbytery does not wish to engage insuch examination, that is that. To saythat anyone member could force anexamination would be to rob it of itsdiscretionary character, make it mandatory except by unanimous consent.

Pennsylvania Judicial CasesThe cases of five Philadelphia min

isters tried for their IndependentBoard connections by the Synod ofPennsylvania's Judicial Commission,found guilty, came to the Assembly'sCommission on appeal. In the courseof the argument, as in the whole ofthe week that the commission sat,developed two views of the natureof church power, views that are ininevitable conflict with each other.One is the historic-Presbyterian-Constitutional-Protestant view, held bythose who are now being attacked bythe church machine. The other is theview of the "totalitarian" churchin essence the Roman Catholic viewof church power against which theReformation was a protest, and whichProtestants have always considereddishonoring and disloyal to the LordJesus Christ. It became increasinglyplain that in the decision in thesecases one or the other of these viewswould have to give way.

New Jersey CasesFour complaints came up against

the Synod of New Jersey. Thestrange gyrations in connection withat least one of these will be reportedin the next issue of THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN. In one other, thepapers had not been sent up. TheCommission thereupon censured theRev. Cordie J. Culp, Ph.D., D.D.,Stated Clerk of the Synod, and ordered him to produce the papers forits hearings in the Synod case. Theother two complaints, having to dowith the action of the Synod in refusing to find in order a complaintagainst the Presbytery of West J ersey in voting to appoint a committeeto prepare charges against the Rev.Carl McIntire; and another concerning an overture dealing with Modernism and the official Board of ForeignMissions, were argued ably by Mr.McIntire.

Local ColorLocal color was considerably added

to by the presence in Columbus of


Stated Clerk of Assembly Lewis Seymour Mudge. Reportedly he wasthere "to look after the interests ofthe commission"-who are all adultspresumably able to look after themselves. While he might have sent thecommission everything it needed viathe U. S. mails, administration friendsdenied indignantly that Stated ClerkMudge was lobbying. However, thestate-of-mind of the organization isshown by the fact that the Rev. Wm.B. Pugh, D.D., reputed author of the1934 mandate, happened during theweek of the commission's sessions totake a three-day trip, which trip happened to be to Columbus, Ohio's Deshler-Wallick Hotel.

Meantime, amid arguments andcoincidences, the commission listened judicially, asked few questions,treated everyone with courtesy, gaveno hint of its state-of-mind,

PRESBYTERY OF WEST JERSEYTABLES OVERTURE ON

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

Also Flouts Law in ElectingCommissioners

M E E TIN G on April 21st, inSwedesboro, New Jersey, the

Presbytery of West Jersey by a decisive vote laid upon the table without discussion an overture to theGeneral Assembly offered by the Rev.Clifford S. Smith, pastor of the WestPresbyterian Church, Bridgeton. Textof the overture:

OVERTURE

The Presbytery of West Jersey respectfully overtures the General Assemblyof 1936;

1. To take care to elect to positions onthe Board of Christian Education onlypersons who not only firmly believe thefundamental verities of our faith suchas the full truthfulness of Scripture, theVirgin birth of our Lor~, His subst,itutionary death as a sac~lfice to satisfydivine justice, His bodily res?rrectlOnand His miracles as being essential to theWord of God and our standards, butwho are determined to insist upon theseverities.

2. To instruct the Board of C~ristianEducation that no one who demes the

absolute necessity of acceptance of theabove-mentioned verities by every minister in our denomination should possiblybe considered as competent to be anofficer of staff of the Board.

3. To instruct the Board of ChristianEducation that all literature published byor in the name of the Board be thoroughly in accord with the doctrinal standards of our church and the Word of Godupon which our standards are founded.

As soon as the overture was reported out by the Committee on Billsand Overtures, a motion was made,and instantly seconded, to lay it onthe table. The motion was not debatable. It was carried 48 to 20. Mr.Smith had prepared ten pages ofmimeographed "dynamite" to supporthis thesis that the Board of ChristianEducation is unfaithful to the standards of the church. This was notpresented, due to the tabling of theoverture. Another attempt to reformthe church was thus smothered in itscrib.

Illegal Ballot HeldWhen the Presbytery came to vote

for commissioners to the General Assembly, occurred one of the strangestevents of recent ecclesiastical maneuvering. Six commissioners were tobe elected. Conservatives in the presbytery decided to nominate onlyabout half that number, vote for themalone. After the nominations had beenmade, before the voting, a rule wasput through by majority vote afterhot debate that every ballot mustcontain six names, that any ballotwith less than that number would notbe counted! Vainly did conservativesdeclare that they could not be coercedinto voting for men they did notwish to vote for. The majority stoodfast. It was six or nothing. One elderdeclared that after a score of yearsin presbytery if his right to vote forwhom he pleased was thus takenaway, he would never return. Thepolitical nature of the device was apparent: in order to vote for their fewnominees, conservatives had to votefor others whose votes would bedrawn from both sides and who thuswould be sure of election. The resolution also forbade voting for otherpersons than those originally nominated!

Complaint against the election willbe entered, it is reliably reported, andan effort made to see that the illegallyelected commissioners are not seatedin the Assembly.

MILWAUKEE PRESBYTERYADOPTS CHRISTlAI

EDUCATION OVERTUREActs on Petition fromCedar Grove Session

O N April 21st, 1936, meeting atOostburg, Wisconsin, the Pres

bytery-. of Milwaukee adopted anoverture to the General Assemblyconcerning the Board of ChristianEducation. The session of the FirstPresbyterian Church of Cedar Grove,the Rev. J. J. DeWaard, pastor, hadpetitioned the presbytery to send tothe Assembly an overture practicallyidentical with that offered in Philadelphia by Dr. Ned B. Stonehouse.(See other news columns for text.)The committee to which the matterwas referred brought out a reportemasculating the proposed overture.In the discussion which followed, thecommittee report was abandoned, theoverture amended and passed. Theamendments took some of the starchfrom the overture, yet retained certain of its essential features. Therewere those who thought that adoptionof the overture was a clever expedient to split the session and people ofCedar Grove from their conscientiousand militant pastor by providing a"demonstration" of the orthodoxy ofthe presbytery.

The overture, as revised andpassed, is as follows:

"The Presbytery of Milwaukee respectfully overtures the General Assembly of 1936

"1. To elect to the Board of Christian Education only such memberswho are faithful to the doctrinalstandards of our church-particularlyto the full truthfulness of the HolyScriptures, the Virgin Birth of ourLord, His substitutionary death as asacrifice to satisfy Divine justice, Hisbodily resurrection and His miraclesas essential to our system of Christiandoctrine,

"2. To instruct the Board of Christian Education that no one who deniesthe absolute necessity of such loyalty to the Bible, and to the Confession of Faith, shall serve on its staff,

"3. To instruct the Board of Christian Education to publish only literature that is true to the historic witness


of the Church, and to avoid thepublication of literature that departsfrom this witness,

"4. To instruct the Board of Christian Education to avoid co-operation

.with organizations or individuals thatshow by their publications or otheractivities that they are not insistingupon the full truthfulness of the Bibleand upon the other evangelical verities."

PHILADELPHIA REFUSESOBEDIENCE PLEDGE TO

CHURCH CONSTITUTIONModernist Moderator RulesOverture "Out of Order"

AT its adjourned meeting held onApril 14th the Presbytery of Phil

adelphia, once a stronghold of Constitutional evangelicalism, expressly refused by majority vote to promisethat in licensing and ordaining candidates it would abide by the Constitution of the church. During the debateon the new proposed standing rules,the following rule was proposed bythe committee: "In the examinationof candidates for licensure or ordination, the right of all members to askany question of the candidate thattends to satisfy Presbytery as to hisqualifications fOJ: the Gospel Ministryin the Presbyterian Church in theU.S.A., shall be recognized."

Known to all was the fact that thisrule was sponsored by the modernist-middle-of-the-road coalition whichnow usually dominates the presbytery,in an effort to pledge candidates to"loyalty" to official Boards and obedience-in-advance to future Assemblydeliverances.

Then rose Dr. Oswald T. Allis,Professor in Westminster Seminary,longtime member of presbytery, withan amendment. He wished to add tothe proposed rule these words: "provided those questions do not directlyor indirectly commit the candidate asto his future conduct beyond theterms of the Constitution."

Dr. Allis spoke ably for his amendment, which placed the majority in adifficult, not to say indefensible logical position. The majority, however,cut the Gordian knot very simply, byvoting down the amendment viva

voce, with speed, and proceeding tothe next docketed item. Thus, ineffect, the oldest presbytery hasserved notice in advance that it wiIlrefuse to be bound by the Constitutionof the church.

Overture Ruled OutAnother highlight of the meeting

was the action of Moderator Barnes,first Auburn Affirrnationist to beelected to that position in Philadelphia, in ruling out of order the proposed overture regarding the Boardof Christian Education, offered byDr. Ned B. Stonehouse. The overtureis as follows:

"The Presbytery of Philadelphia respectfully overtures the General Assembly of 1936

"1. To take care to elect to the Boardof Christian Education only persons whoare aware of the danger in which thechurch stands of losing its historic Christian witness, and who are determined toinsist upon such verities as the full truthfulness of Scripture, the virgin birth ofour Lord, His substitutionary death as asacrifice to satisfy Divine justice, Hisbodily resurrection and His miracles asbeing essential to the system of doctrineto which the Presbyterian Church iscommitted by its Constitution,

2. To instruct the Board of ChristianEducation that no one who denies theabsolute necessity of such loyalty to theBible, and to the Confession of Faith,shall serve on its staff,

3. To instruct the Board of ChristianEducation to publish only literature thatis true to the historic witness of theChurch, and to cease the publication ofliterature that departs from this witness,

4. To instruct the Board of ChristianEducation to cease co-operation withorganizations or individuals that show bytheir publications or other activities thatthey are not insisting upon the full truthfulness of the Bible and upon the otherevangelical verities.

Immediately following the readingof the overture, Dr. Barnes declaredit out of order. In doing this he readfrom a paper as follows:

"The Moderator rules that the paperwhich has been presented as an overtureto the General Assembly is not in properform and therefore is out of order.

"The reasons for this ruling are asfollows:

"1. This paper contains charges againstthe Board of Christian Education, [itsmembers, officers and staff]. There is aproper and legal way in which suchcharges can be made if desired but it isnot by means of an overture.

"2. This paper sets forth certain statements as established facts which are onlyopinions,--opinions either of an individualor of a group. This is not proper in anoverture.

"To be legitimate, an overture mustbe in such form as to call the attentionof the General Assembly to irregularities

in administration, procedure, or doctrinewhich may be thought to exist and seekan unprejudiced investigation and reportin the light of which, judgments andactions may be formulated.

"This paper is not in that form anddoes not seek that end. It is not in orderbefore this Presbytery."

The words in brackets were not inthe original copy of the Moderator'sruling as given to the Stated Clerkand to Dr. Stonehouse. They wereincluded in a revised copy sent out bythe Moderator after some days, withthe assertion that they had actuallybeen read by him.

The Moderator's ruling came as ageneral surprise, for the overture followed the general lines usual in suchcases, and was according to custom.It has been the cry of bureaucrats foryears: "If you believe anything iswrong in the Boards, bring up thematter by overture to the Assembly.That is the Constitutional way." Consequently the Moderator's ruling cameas an unexpected blow.

Dr. Stonehouse appealed from theModerator's ruling. The appeal hadto be taken without debate, so thevital matter had to be settled sansdiscussion. The Moderator was sustained by a majority. Several protestsand dissents were entered at once.The Moderator took umbrage at onemember who declared the ruling"high-handed," and ruled the language "unparliamentary and out oforder." The maker of the protestreplied that he meant no reflectionupon the Moderator's motives, butthat he retained the same opinion ofthe ruling.

As in the case of the Rev. CliffordS. Smith in the Presbytery of WestJersey, just a week later, Dr. Stonehouse was armed with a satchelfulof facts to document the need for theoverture. They were never presented.

VVATERLOO PRESBYTERYBANS VVESTMINSTER MEN

TH E .Presbyte~y of Waterloo, Iowa,at Its meeting on April 22nd,

1936, passed the following resolution:"That the Committee on Vacancy

and Supply not employ any men assupplies for our field who are identified with Westminster TheologicalSeminary."

This resolution emphasized twofacts: (1) official opposition to Westminster men, (2) that, from all over


the church, congregations have beenasking for Westminster men and menof that type, scholarly yet evangelical,so that practically the entire outputof the Seminary is rapidly absorbeddespite fact number one.

BISMARCK PRESBYTERYPROTESTS NATIONAL

BOARD DOMINATION"Substitutes Word of Man

for Word of God"

TH E Presbytery of Bismarck, N. D.,meeting on April 13th, 1936, ad

dressed to the Board of NationalMissions a letter, courteous yetpointed, in an effort to maintain theConstitution of the church. The pointof the letter was in objection to therules for National Mission Churcheslaid down in the Board manual. (Seearticle by the Rev. S. J. Allen in THEPRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN for April6th, 1936.) The communication follows:

Steele, North Dakota,April IS, 1936.

The Board of National Missions,Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.,156 Fifth Avenue,New York, N. Y.

The Presbytery of Bismarck, Synodof North Dakota, convening at Belfieldon April 13, 1936, wishes t.o inform t?eBoard that it thoroughly disapproves Itsnew program as outlined in "The Manualfor National Missions Churches" because

1. The new set-up usurps the prerogative of the church session to control thespiritual welfare and worship of the congregation. (Form of Government 9, Sections 6 and 7). Also the power of Presbytery in general to order whatsoeverpertains to the spiritual welfare of thechurches under its care.

2. It substitutes the word of man forthe Word of God, as it compels churcheswhich need aid to promise implicitly tosupport shifting human programs If theyare to get it.

3. It sets up the Board as a court todecide who measures up to standards andwho does not. It is the prosecutor, judge,and jury and there is no way to appealits verdict.

If God answers our prayers we aresure that the work will go on with increasing effectiveness in reaching the lostfor Christ. We believe, if the presentpolicy of the Board contin~es, it f?e~nsthe ultimate ruin of National MISSIOnchurches.

H. RALPH SHIRLEY,Stated Clerk,

Presbytery of Bismarck.

NEW BRUNSWICK PRESBYTERYREFUSES TO ALLOW PROTEST

AGAINST ILLEGAL ACTIONSConstitutional Rights Denied

the Rev. B. F. Hunt

O N April 14th the Presbyteryof New Brunswick, machine

dominated, continued ruthlessly totrample the Constitution of the churchin attempting to stifle a protestagainst its illegal asking of extraconstitutional questions of candidatesfor the ministry. On April 6th it hadexacted from nine candidates a pledgeof implicit support of the officialBoard of Foreign Missions, with theunderstanding that if they ever cameto the point where they could notsupport the Board, they would getout of the church. Against this actionthe Rev. Bruce F. Hunt, a missionaryfrom Korea under the official Board(now on furlough), protested vigorously. He asked to have his protestentered on the minutes. Within theten days allowed by the Constitutionof the church he presented the writtenprotest with reasons. The StatedClerk refused to receive it, on the"ground" that the original protesthad been oral, not written. (TheConstitution does not require theoriginal protest to be written, onlysays that it shall be "entered." Thecustomary practice in judicatories isto give oral notice of protest, ask thatit be entered, and to file the reasons,written, within ten days. This customwas followed by Mr. Hunt.)

On April 14, still within the tendays, Mr. Hunt presented the reasons,written, to the presbytery. It wasspeedily ruled out of order by theModerator. Mr. Hunt then protestedin writing against this decision. Thisprotest was ruled out of order on theground that one could not protestagainst a mere decision of the Moderator. Then Mr. Hunt appealed theModerator's decision, in order toplace himself in the position his opponents declared he must occupy to beable to protest. The Moderator wassustained. Then Mr. Hunt offered hisprotest again. Again, surprisingly, itwas ruled out of order! The judicatory refused to enter it upon theminutes.

Chief objectors to exercise of theright of protest: the Rev. ElmerWalker, Stated Clerk; the Rev. D.Wilson Hollinger, of Trenton, N. J.,one of the prosecutors in Dr.Machen's case; the Rev. Cordie J.Culp, Moderator of the Commissionthat tried Dr. Machen, Stated Clerkof the Synod of New Jersey, himselfcensured by the Permanent JudicialCommission of the General Assemblyon April 21st for failing to send uppapers in a complaint.

Mr. Hunt has entered complaint tothe synod against the extra-constitutional questions asked by the presbytery in defiance of the Constitutionof the Church.

On April 21st, Mr. Hunt sent to theStated Clerk of the presbytery a further protest as follows:

1. The undersigned, a member of thePresbytery of New Brunswick, respectfully protests against the ruling of themoderator of Presbytery at its meetingin Flemington April 14, 1936, which ruling declares to be out of order (1) hisverbal protest of April 6th, 1936, andnotice that reasons would be given withinthe required time and (2) the writtenprotest and reasons for it under date ofApril 13th, to be out of order.

2. Statement as to what transpired inconnection with the said Protest.

On April 6th at the meeting of NewBrunswick Presbytery I, the undersigned,verbally protested asking the candidatesfor licensure the following question,found in the by-laws of the Presbytery:"Are you willing to support the regularlyauthorized Boards and Agencies of thePresbyterian Church, U.S.A., particularly the Board of Foreign Missions?"I verbally gave certain reasons for protesting and signified my intention ofgiving those reasons in writing to theStated Clerk within the time allowed bythe Constitution. No record of this protest was entered by the Secretary at thatmeeting though my dissent was entered.

On April 14th I presented the protestin writing accompanied by the reasons,also in writing, to the Stated Clerk. TheClerk declared that because the protesthad not been presented in writing at themeeting when the action protested transpired the protest had not been entered andthe protest together with reasons was outof order and that he could not nowreceive the reasons though it was stillwithin the ten days allowed by the Constitution.

At the time for miscellaneous businessI acquainted the Presbytery with theStated Clerk's refusal to enter my protestand appealed for a decision from thePresbytery. .

On the floor of the Presbytery It wasagain argued that because the protest hadnot been in writing at the meeting wherethe action protested took place it did notmeet the constitutional requirements for


a protest. A ruling of the Assembly in1897 (Presbyterian Digest 1930, VolumeI, p. 243 Question 2) which declares thata protest must be in the hands of theclerk before it can be considered to havebeen presented to the body, was quoted.

It was further argued that even if theprotest had been in order as to time andform, it was not in order because theundersigned was protesting a rule ofPresbytery which had been adopted at aprevious meeting and that that meetingwas the only time when such a rulingcould be protested. I answered these withsome of the reasons set forth below.

The Moderator then ruled my protestout of order. I then presented the aboveprotest in writing. This protest was alsodeclared to be out of order because itwas not a protest against a vote of presbytery in which I had been outvoted andmy conscience compromised. I insistedthat the ruling of the Moderator ordinarily represented the Presbytery butthat this particular ruling did not represent my opinion, who am one of the members of Presbytery with a vote and Itherefore protested. My attention wascalled to the fact that I could appealfrom the decision of the chair, which Idid. The Moderator was upheld over mydissenting vote. I then having had a"right to vote" and having "voted againstthe" Moderator's "decision" said "myprotest is now in order."But the Moderator continued to declare it out of orderand it was not entered on the minutes.

3. The Reasons for my protest are:A. I believe my protest to be in order

as to form. (a) As verbally given it was"a more formal declaration-bearingtestimony against what is believed to beirregular or erroneous" (Book of Discipline Chapter XI Section 2), in that itwas not just a request to have my dissent recorded but I gave reasons forprotesting the action ("as it is accompanied with reasons, it is virtually aprotest," Presbyterian Digest 1930, Volume I p. 739), and informed the Presbytery that the reasons in writing wouldbe forthcoming. (b) The Constitutiondoes not expressly state that the protestmust be in writing. The same words"made" and "entered" are used of a dissent (Book of Discipline Chapter XI,Section I and Section 2), and although Idid not "write" the dissent which I"made" I notice that the Secretary "entered" it in the minutes and I heard itread. (c) Some hold that PresbyterianDigest 1930 Volume I p. 743 Section VQuestion 2 makes it mandatory that "aprotest to be considered as having beenpresented to the body" must have firstbeen "placed in the hands of the clerk."In answer to this I reiterate the abovearguments and say that this ruling wasgiven in 1897 when the section "and thereasons on which it is founded shall betransmitted to the clerk of the judicatorywithin ten days" were not a part of theBook of Discipline Chapter XI Section 2.Today it must be "accompanied withreasons" and these are allowed "ten days"to be presented. This would imply thatverbal "dissent with reasons" at the meeting would be a legitimate form for entering at the meeting when the thing pro-

tested took place. (d) As written and"accompanied by reasons" I believe it tobe couched in decorous and respectfullanguage without offensive reflections orinsinuations. (Book of Discipline Chapter XI, Sections 2, 3.)

B. I believe my protest to be in orderas to time. (a) I protested the actionverbally at the Presbytery meeting, April6th, 1936, when the thing protested occurred (Book of Discipline Chapter XISection 2), expecting it to be "entered" inso far as it could be "entered" withoutthe "accompanying reasons" which areallowed ten days (Book of DisciplineChapter XI Section 2). Thus as far as Iwas concerned it was "entered at theparticular session of the judicatory during which the action protested against istaken." From a more recent experiencewhen I did try to present a written protest in the closing minutes of a Presbytery session I learned what a handicapsuch an interpretation requiring that aprotest be in writing could be to a conscientious protestor and I cannot believethe Constitution was made to hinder fairprotest. (b) The protest in writing "accompanied with reasons" (Book of Discipline Chapter XI Section 2) was placedin the hands of the Stated Clerk onApril 14th, eight days after the protest was first made. True, the clerkreturned them to me saying it was toolate, stating that the protest should havebeen in writing at the April 6th session.I later on that same day, April 14th,1936, placed the protest accompanied withreasons on his table in the sight of thewhole Presbytery though he continued todeclare it out of order and to say hewould not receive it. So I maintain thatthe protest with reasons was before thePresbytery in writing within the timeallowed and unless otherwise found out oforder must according to the Constitutionbe entered on the minutes (Book ofDiscipline Chapter XI Section 3). (c) Ihave been informed by responsible members of other Presbyteries that in theirPresbyteries it has not been the practiceto interpret the Constitution as meaningthat a protest must be given in writing atthe meeting when it is entered.

C. I believe my protest to be in orderas to the thing protested. The Constitution says it is a more formal declarationbearing testimony against what is believedto be an "irregular or erroneous proceeding, decision, or judgment" (Book ofDiscipline Chapter XI Section 2). I believe it to be an erroneous proceeding toinsert a question after the questionsprescribed by the Constitution for licensure when the Constitution expresslystates: "If the Presbytery be satisfiedwith the trials of a candidate for licensureit shall then proceed to license him inthe following manner, the moderator shallpropose to him the following questions-" "The candidate having answeredthese questions in the affirmative, andthe moderator having offered up a prayersuitable to the occasion he shall addresshimself to the candidate to the followingpurpose," etc. (Form of GovernmentChapter XIV Sections 8, 9.) The Constitution makes no provision for additionalquestions at this point in the proceedings.

I further believe it an erroneous proceeding to ask such a question as wasasked expecting an affirmative answeranywhere in the examination for the reason that it pretends to bind the consciences of men by virtue of the Presbytery's authority (Form of GovernmentChapter I Section 7) and does not leavethe consciences of those who answer inthe affirmative free from the dictates ofmen and under the Lordship of God alone.

I was not protesting the insertion ofsuch a question in the by-laws of thePresbytery, though I would have protested it if I had been there when itwas first adopted. I was protesting theasking of what to me was an unconstitutional question and therefore an erroneous proceeding at that particular sessionof Presbytery.

D. I believe my protest to be in orderin so far as my right of protest is concerned. Being a member of PresbyteryI have a vote and therefore was entitledto protest the erroneous proceeding. ThePresbytery "entered" my dissent and thesame rule holds for a dissent that holdsfor a protest as to who has the right ofdissent or protest. No one shall be allowed to dissent or protest who had not aright to vote on the question decided.randwho did not vote against the decision(Book of Discipline Chapter XI Section6). Just how the matter was recorded orthe vote put I cannot say, as I have notyet been given access to the minutes ofthat meeting, and my memory. is notclear, but I do know that my dissent tothe action was entered and the conditionsas to right of vote and having opposedthe decision 'were the same in the protest as in the dissent, for the thingdissented against was the thing protested.

Respectfully submitted,Signed: BRUCE F. HUNT.

April 21, 1936To the Rev. Elmer Walker, Stated Clerk,

Presbytery of New Brunswick.

DONEGAL "INVESTIGATES"CONSERVATIVE PASTOR

The Rev. E. C. DeVelde'sActions to be Probed

A T a meeting of the Presbytery ofDonegal (Lancaster and York

Counties, Pa.) April 21, 1936, in theprocess of the examination of sessional records, the Rev. Wm. H. Davies of the Little Britain Church,Nottingham, R. D., rose to take anexception to the minutes of the Centre Church, New Park, Pa., of whichthe Rev. E. C. DeVelde is the popularpastor. Mr. Davies had come acrossthe record of the Centre Church Session of January II, 1936: "After adiscussion of the problems confronting OUr denomination, it was voted to


The Presbyterian GuardianVol. 2 MAY 4, 1936 No.3

EditorH. McALLISTER GRIFFITHS

Circulation ManagerTHOMAS R. 81RCH

The Presbyterian Guardian is publishedtwice a month by The Presbyteria n Constitutional Covenant Union, at the followingrates, payable in advance, for either oldor new subscribers in any part of the world,postage prepaid: $1.50 per year; $1.00 forseven months; 10c per copy. IntroductoryRate: Two and a half months for 25c.

Editorial and Business Offices: 1209 Commonwealth Building. Philadelphia, Penna.

offer the use of the Church for apopular meeting of the Christian Assembly." Mr. Davies wanted to knowfrom the pastor of Centre Church ifthis was the basis of rumors beingpassed around the presbytery to theeffect that the pastor of CentreChurch was soliciting his elders andpeople to see how many of themwould split with him from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

It was successfully contended thatthis had nothing to do with the accuracy or legality of the minutes, sothe matter was dropped at that point,but, at the insistence of the Rev.George H. Shea, Middle OctoraraChurch, Quarryville, R. D., the matter was brought up later. This time,after some discussion, the followingresolution was adopted by a dividedvote, "That the presbytery appoint acommittee to investigate affairs inCentre Church."

The committee appointed by theModerator, the Rev. J. H. Arnold ofYork, is the Rev. W. L. Hemphill,Paradise, Pa.; the Rev. C. B. Segleken, Mt. Joy, Pa.; the Rev. T. E.Redding, Lancaster, Pa.; Elder Waiter B. Hays, York, Pa.; and ElderH. S. Hiestand of Marietta.

The burden of Mr. Davies' remarkswas that if the rumors about the pastor of Centre Church were true, thenMr. DeVelde had broken his ordination vows concerning the unity ofthe church. (Strangely enough, theordination vows do not contain astatement about unity nor the word"unity" itself, but pledge the candidate to maintain the truths of thegospel and the purity and peace of thechurch, regardless of persecution or

opposition that may arise on thataccount.)

The work at Centre Church hasgone along with the blessing of Godupon it. The pastor and session havestood from time to time for the sakeof the purity of the church aboveeverything else, and have called forreform in the denomination. Themeeting referred to in the JanuaryI lth minutes, developed into one atwhich the Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths, editor of THE PRESBYTERIANGUARDIAN, spoke, there being severalChurches represented.

Before the resolution was passedby Donegal Presbytery at the end ofits routine business, Mr. DeVeldepresented the following overture,which, after he had spoken for itssupport, was referred to the Committee on Christian Education:

"The Presbytery of Donegal respectfully overtures the General Assembly of 1936: (1) To instruct itsBoard of Christian Education, firstly,that it use its full influence to bringthe chapel and classroom instructionof all colleges and universities, withwhich it now cooperates, into fullagreement with the Bible, our Confession of Faith, and the catechisms.

"(2) To instruct the Board ofChristian Education, secondly, to withhold cooperation and financial supportto colleges and universities where theclassroom and chapel instruction arenot thoroughly in accord with the

Westminster

Commencement

Commencement exercisesfor Westminster TheologicalSeminary will be held in theWitherspoon Auditorium, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, on Tuesday, May 12th,at eight o'clock in the evening.The address will be deliveredby the Rev. Albert B. Dodd,D.O., of China. The public iscordially invited by the Seminary to be present on this occasion.

Bible, our Confession of Faith, and·the catechisms, if the above mentioned influence should fail.

"(3) To instruct the Board ofChristian Education to publish andendorse only such literature as is infull and positive harmony with theBible, the Confession of Faith, andthe catechisms; and to give strongemphasis to the cardinal doctrines ofthe Christian faith."

PRESBYTERY DISAPPROVESNATIONAL-EDUCATION

BOARD MERGERBismarck Presbytery Studies

and Opposes Proposals

TH E Presbytery of Bismarck, N. D.,on April 13th unanimously passed

a resolution opposing the merger ofthe Board of National Missions andthe Board of Christian Education.Located in "National Missions Territory" the judgment of this presbyteryhas a peculiar interest.

The resolution adopted was proposed by a committee which presenteda cogent report drawn up by one ofthe Justices of the Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota. The text of the resolution follows:

"The Presbytery of Bismarck, havingheard and discussed the report of Itscommittee on the proposed plan of mergerof the Board of National Missions withthe Board of Christian Education, andhaving given full consideration to thequestion of the proposed merger,. and

"It being necessary to transmit to theGeneral Council of the Church the actionof the said Presbytery with reference tothe said proposal,

UNow therefore, be it resolved that thePresbyt~ry of Bismarck, in regular s~ssion assembled, declares It to be Its deliberate judgment that the proposed meas~re

is unnecessary, unwise, and fraught WIthserious consequences to our Church ; t~at

we have for some time viewed WIthserious anxiety the constant secretion ofpower in the hands o.f the Board of National Missions having a tendency .torender it independent of the presbyteriesand the Synods; that, according to thejudgment of the Presbytery,. this proposedmerger will but add to this Increase ofpower and by the invasion of the powersof the Presbytery will tend to change ourPresbyterian system fundamentally; thatthe powers of the Board should be reduced and not increased so as to makeit truly the servant of the Church and


the plan of merger still further encroacheson Presbyterial and Synodical powers;

"Be it resolved further that we deemit unwise to have the matter of ChristianEducation placed as an adjunct of theBoard of National Missions and believethat it is time for the Church at large to.give serious consideration to and bettersupervision and control of the Board ofChristian Education so as to correct manyof the serious factors which have beenassociated with the Board in recent yearsand which have caused so much unrest inthe Church;

"Resolved further that it is the deliberate judgment of this Presbytery thematter of Christian Education is of suchsupreme importance that it is entitled toa place in" the work of the Church coequal with the work of a Board chargedwith the payment of salaries, allotmentsto presbyteries, church erection, and similar features of the work entrusted to theBoard of National Missions; and that anypresent defects' due to over-lapping canbe remedied readily and yet give Christian Education its proper place.

"Resolved further that certified copy ofthis resolution, signed by the Moderatorand the Stated Clerk, be forwarded tothe Secretary of the General Council."

all expelled from their fields at once,but the presbytery voted to allowthem to remain until September.

Leading the fight for reception wasthe Rev. Jack Zandstra, of Alexandria, S. D., who ably presented theview that the presbytery had no rightto make extra-constitutional requirements.

The three candidates had beengiven a long grilling in committee.H was the committee, not the candidates, who raised the question of"loyalty" to the Boards. In the presbytery some of the members wereunder the impression that it had beenraised by the candidates themselves.When asked, however, all three maintained their Protestant, constitutionalposition with quiet, courteous determination, even when, as one of themlater expressed it, "I realized thatabout every answer I gave was 'cutting my throat'."

WHO 'S WHO IN THIS ISSUE

IN addition to our regular contributors THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN

presents in this issue the Rev. PaulWoolley, Th.M., Assistant Professorof Church History at the Westminster Theological Seminary, the Rev.Henry G. Weibon, pastor of the Headof Christiana Church, Newark, Delaware, and the Rev. Robert L. Atwell,pastor of the Harrisville PresbyterianChurch, Harrisville, Pennsylvania.The regular feature writers appearing in this issue are the Rev. CharlesJ. Woodbridge, General Secretary ofThe Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, Miss MarianBishop Bower of Coilingswood, NewJersey, the Rev. David Freeman ofGrace Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and the Rev. L. Craig Long ofNew Haven, Connecticut.

1j

SIOUX FAllS DEMANDSSUPPORT OF BOARDS

Refuses to Receive ThreeConstitutionalists a 6Jhrilling [Report 01

•

General Assembly

The Presbyterian Guardian

Every subscription (a full year, seven months, or five issues)

entered now will indude this report. Don't run the riskof missingthe vital, dramatic story it will tell. Send your subscription now,before it is too late.

j

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania1209 Commonwealth Building

The next General Assembly meets in Syracuse from May 28thto June 3rd. With a traitor's pen it may write "Finis" acrossa once-great chapter of Presbyterian history. Of one thing

only are we certain. Those few short days will tell a pulsing

story of bravery and betrayal, nobleness and shame, loyaltyand dishonor. There wiY be heroism to thrill you, and basedenial to send you to your knees. And every significant detailwill be accurately and vividly described in The PresbyterianGuardian. Does this interest you, Mr. and Mrs. Presbyterian?Does it interest you enough?

O N April 14th, the Presbytery ofSioux Falls, S. D., by a vote of

15 to 6 refused to receive three candidates for the ministry, then servingwith great blessing on fields in thepresbytery, when they refused topromise "loyalty" to the officialBoards of the church.

The three young men, graduates ofWestminster Theological Seminary,are Messrs. WalterJ. Magee, ThomasCooper and Edward Cooper. (Thelast two had been denied licensureby the Presbytery of West Jersey,which action has been held wrong bythe Synod of New Jersey. Given theopportunity to supply fields in SouthDakota, the Cooper brothers did sowith such acceptability that theirfields wished to call them. Then theyapplied for their letters as candidatesfrom the Presbytery of West Jersey.These were granted. But, official pressure having been doubtless exerted inthe meantime, reception was refused.)

Leading the opposition to receptionwas Auburn Affirmationist C. N. MeManis, Chairman of the NationalMissions Committee. He wished them

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhnhi
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

PSALM 102:13-22 - Orthodox Presbyterian Church · PSALM 102:13-22 Thou shalt arise, ... His name...

Documents