Eclessiology de Machen e Hodge1

7/28/2019 Eclessiology de Machen e Hodge1

1/50

mmunion of the saints: Antecedents ofJ.Gresham Machen's ...der, Kevin ThomasQuest Dissertations and Theses; 2001; ProQuestn/a

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films

the text directly frem lhe original or copysubmitted. Thus, some Ihesis and

dissertation copies are intypewriterface,while others may be from any type of

computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon lhe quality of lhe

copy submitted. Brokenor indistind print,colored or poorquality illustrations

and photographs, print bleedthreugh, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adverselyaffed reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be notado Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a notewill indicate the deletion.

Oversize materiais (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, begiming at the upper left-hand comer and continuing

from left to right in equal sections with smallovertaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6- x 9- black and white

photographic prints are available for anyphotographs or iIIustrations appearing

in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI directly to arder.

Bell & Howelllnforrnation and Leaming300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artor, MI 48106-1346 USA

800-521-


2/50roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


3/50

ABSTRACT

COMMUNION OF THE SAlNTS: ANTECEDENTS OF J. GRESHAM MACHEN'S

SEPARA TISM IN THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF CHARLES HODGE ANO THEPRINCETON THEOLOGIANS

By

Kevin T. Bauder

Readers: Stephen Spencer, John Hannah, David Calhoun

Is separatism compatible with Refonned ecclesiology? Some separatists and

some Refonned thinkers have said no. To answer this questioo, I compare a particular

theory of separatism (J . Gresham Machen's) with a particular Refonned ecclesiology

(Charles Hodge's), evaluating the two for their consistency.

The literature on Machen's separatism has uoderlined several issues. Is

theologicalliberalism ever a fonn ofChristianity? Does separatism hinge upon gathered-

church polity? When does a church become apostate? How much error should a

Christian church tolerate? Can separatioo be distinguished from schism? What is the

significance of creedal subscriptioo? How (and by whom) are requirements to be defined

for Presbyterian ordioation?

J. Gresham Machen thought that the gospel is grounded in historica1 events.

The historicity and proper interpretation ofthose events belong to a class ofteachings

that areessentia! to the definition ofChristianity. Since liberalism denies or reinterprets

these fundamentals, it is a distinct religion from Christianity. The two are incompatible.

Liberais should oot remain in Christian churches. Ifthey wiIl not leave, they ought to be

put out. Churches that knowingly tolerate liberais in their teaching office conspire to

propagate an anti-Christian message. Such churches are no longer true churches of

roduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


4/50

2

Jesus Christ. They must be abandoned by the people ofGod, who are commanded to

unite with a true church. A Christian church ought to propagate more than just the

fundamentaIs: it ought to communicate aconsistent system of faith. After Machen left

the Presbyterian Church, questions about the acceptable boundaries ofthe Reformed faith

led to division among his followers.

Charles Hodge's ecc1esiology rests upon the theory of a universal, invisible

church that unites all saints to Christ and to one another. While the invisible church

comprises those who possess true faith, the visible church includes alI who profess the

true faith. People profess the true faith by affirming the essential or fundamental

doctrines. Ali who make this profession are members of the visible church. All churches

that profess the fundamentaIs are true churches ofChrist, even ifthey err at other points.

Membership in a particular church is morally obligatory for all Christians, but it is

politically voluntary. The Presbyterian Church has structured itself on constitutional

grounds, recognizing both the powers of church judicatories and the prerogatives of the

individual conscience. Stated in these terms, Hodge's ecc1esiology embodies a

significant tradition ofReformed ecclesiology.

Machen's thought is quite compatible with Hodge's on the doctrinal nature of

Christianity, the unchristian nature ofliberalism, the voluntary nature ofthe church, and

the confessional nature of Presbyterianism. Some inconsistencies do occur on the limits

ofPresbyterian constitutionalism. Taken on balance, Machen's separatism is generally

compatible with Hodge's ecclesiology. Therefore, at least some articulations of

Reformed ecc1esiology may consistent1y permit some fonns of separatismo

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


5/50

C O M M U NI O N O F T H E SA I NT S: A NT E C E DE NT S O F J . GRESHAM

M ACHE N 'S SE PARA T I SM I N T HE E CCL E SI O L O GY O F CHARL E S

HOOGE ANO THE PRINCETON THEOLOGIANS

A Oissertation

Presented To

T he F aculty ofthe Oivision of

T heological Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

I n Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

by

K evin T . 8auderM ay2001



6/50

UMI Number: 3002958

Copyright 2001 by

Bauder, Kevin Thomas

Ali rights reserved.

UMf

UMI Microform 3002958

Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and leaming Company.

Ali rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Cade.

Bell & Howell Information and leaming Company

300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346



7/50

A ccepted by the Faculty ofthe Dallas T heological Seminary inpartia! fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor ofPhilosophy

Examining Committee

/ /

c-~J



8/50

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people should receive credit for this dissertation. I only had to put the

words on paper. They perfonned the much more difficult task of putting the ideas in my

head and the resources in my hands. Therefore, some expression of gratitude is in order.

My parents have always sought to instill in their children a sense ofthe value

of education. More importantly, from the time that they first placed their trust in Christ,

they have shown us the wonder of Iives transformed by the grace of God. Their teaching

and example have more to do with this dissertation than any other earthly influence. To

the Rev. and Mrs. Thomas Bauder, I say thankyou.

Not alI fundamentalists are widely known for grace and magnanimity, but I

have been blessed to have some ofthe best models. "Preacher' Robert Weckle showed

me what it meant to be aman oflove. David Nettleton set a standard for Christian

statesmanship that I can hardly hope to emulate. George Houghton awakened my interest

in the history and ideas of fundamentalism at a time when I had nearly determined that I

would never be a fundamentalist. From bis brother, Myron Houghton, I first caught the

love of systematic theology. From Robert Delnay Ilearned that it was possible (even if

unusual) for a fundamentalist to enjoy both deep piety and broad learning. For a time

Dr. and Mrs. William Fusco showed me daily what true devotion must be. Dr, and Mrs.

Charles Hauser have given me an example ofbeing instant in season and out of season.

Each of these persons has in some way shaped this dissertation.

11



9/50

Iam deeply grateful to the people ofFaith Baptist Church in Sachse, Texas.

They were willing to tolerate--even to encourage-a pastor who was robbing them ofhis

time and energy in order to complete a doctoraI programo If they ever resented it, I never

knew. Iam also grateful to my colleagues at Central Baptist Theological Seminary who

have carried an additionalload while I was completing this work.

Gratitude beyond the ordinary measure is due to my advisor, Stephen Spencer,

and my second reader, John Hannah. Without their forbearance and charitable

encouragement I would not have survived. Gentlemen, [ acknowledge my debt to you.

This dissertation could not have been completed without the gracious

assistance of the staff of the Archives and Special Collections of the Princeton

Theological Seminary Libraries. At Westminster Theological Seminary, D. G. Hart and

cspecially Grace Mullen ofthe Montgomery Library allowed me to take advantage of

their knowledge to an exceptional degree.

More importantly than any ofthe above, my wife and children have

contributed much toward this dissertation. As 1type this acknowledgment, my daughter

Rachei is collating pages and my son Joshua is offering encouragement. Every page of

this dissertation has been handled and every word proofread repeatedly by my wife,

Debbie. This has been a project in which we have all shared. Debbie has willingly

refused many comforts that she had a right to expect from ahusband. She has cheerfully

entered into the labors with me, has helped and encouraged me at every step. She has

found her fulfillment in making it possible for me to complete this degree. 1would never

have dared to ask for what shehas willingly given. Rachel, Joshua, Debbie: thank you.

Take a deep breath. It's finally over.

111



10/50

Needless to say, nobody that I have named here bears responsibility for the

manifold imperfections ofthis work. Iwas quite capable ofproducing those on my own.

If anything in the following pages is found to be useful, however, the credit must be

shared with (or tlatly given to) others,

iv



11/50

T o Debbie



12/50

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

Chapter

1. MACHEN'S SEPARATISM IN AMERICANHISTORIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

The Ground of the Enquiry

The Literature on Machen's Separatism

The Need for Further Study ofMachen's Separatism

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MACHEN'S SEPARATISM 63

Christianity and Culture

Christianity and History

Facts and Doctrines

Christianity and Liberalism

The Church and Its Fellowship

Liberalism and Indifferentism

3. THE ECCLESIOLOGICAL VISION OF CHARLES HODGE 128

The Universal, Invisible Church

The Visible, Catholic Church

Presbyterian Church Order

Summary on Hodge's Ecclesiology

4. COMP ARIS0N ANO EVALUA TION 259

The Doctrinal Nature ofChristianity

The Unchristian Nature ofLiberalism

v



13/50

vi

T he V oluntary Nature ofthe C hurch

T he Confessional Nature ofPr esbyterianism

T he C onstitutional Nature ofPr esbyterianism

Conclusion

SEL EC T ED BI BL I OGR AP HY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 296

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources



14/50

CHAPTER 1

MACHEN'S SEPARA TISM IN AMERICANHISTORIOGRAPHY

The name of J. Gresharn Machen has been linked with the cause of American

fundamentalism since the 1920s. Most contemporaneous fundamentalist leaders wrote

little of enduring interest. Even their ecclesiastical heirs are rarely familiar with their

writings. No major publisher is reprinting the works ofT. T. Shields, W. B. Riley, J ohn

R. Stratan, orJ . Frank Norris, the most recognizable fundamentalists ofthose decades.

Only students of fundamentalist bistory are Iikely to search for their books and articles.

J. Gresham Machen is the exception to the rule. Machen did not I ike to be

called a fundamentalist and disapproved ofsome aspects ofthe fundarnentalist

movement, but he could not avoid being identified with it. Unlike other fundarnentalist

leaders of the 1920s, however, Machen 's writings are still widely read and his ideas are

frequently discussed. A growing body of secondary Iiterature explores bis thought and

influence.

This dissertation investigates one aspect ofJ . Gresham Machen's thought. It

sets his separatism within the context ofReformed ecc1esiology, using the Reformed

theory ofthe church as an instrument for measuring the consistency ofMachen's

separatist principIes. Before the discussion can proceed, however, [ must say a further

word about why this question is important and how it will be answered.

1



15/50

2

The Ground of the Enguizy

Fundamentalism is distinct from other fonns of conservative evangelica1ism,

especially the neoevangelicalism that emerged in the United States during the late 1940s.

The difference has often been noted, though few have been able to define it. James Barr

mentions the contrast between the fundamentalist Bob Jones and the evangelical Billy

Graham.IEvans and Berent explain the ditference by focusing on the fundamentalist

belief in biblical inerrancy.i Lawrence distinguishes fundamentalism by its attitude

towards evolution.' Wuthnow thinks that an emphasis upon the divine, verbal inspiration

and inerrancy ofthe Bible is what sets fundamentalists apart from evangelicals," Marty

and Appleby explain the ditference as amatter of attitude and rhetoric, largely intangible

to an outside observer.i Arnrnerman distinguishes fundamentalists from evangelicals by

their attitude towards separatism, their self-identification, their dogmatism about the

literal nature of Scripture, and their predilection for dispensational premillennialism,"

IJames Barr, Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press, 1977; Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1978), 187-234.

2Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent, Fundamentalism: Hazards and

Heartbreaks (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1988),3.

3Bruce B. Lawrence, Defenders ofGod: TheFundamentalist Revolt againstthe Modem Age (New Y ork: I. B. Tauris, 1989), 169.

"Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America 'sSoul: Evangelicals, Liberais,and Secularism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), 48.

sMartin E. Marty and R. Soott Appleby, The Glory and the Power: TheFundamentalist Challenge to the Modem World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 66-67.

~ancy Tatom Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the ModemWorld (New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1987),4-6.



16/50

3

Both fundamentalists and evangelicals have insisted that their movements

should be distinguished. Kenneth Kantzer speaks from the evangelical side, arguing that

Barr's treatment is tlawed by its failure adequately to differentiate the two.' Some

fundamentalists still utter denunciations ofthe evangelical movement, occasionally

coupled with refusals to be recognized as any part of evangelicalism.i

Certain1y fundamentalism and evangelicalism are related movements, but

some difference is apparent. Many who have attempted to define this difference have

found that separatism emerges as one ofthe leading marks. For example, Louis Gasper's

discussion ofthe "dual alignment offundamentalism" during the 1940s and 1950s

distinguishes the two groups by their differences over separatsm," Their adherents split

over Bil1yGraham's active solicitation oftheologicalliberals for leadership in his

evangelistic campaigns. Graham's approach, articulated and defended by Robert Ferm,

7Kenneth Kantzer, "Unity and Diversity in Evangelical Faith," in The

Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who TheyAre, Where They Are Changing, ed. David

F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 77.

8Clay Nuttall, "The Dismantling ofBiblical Authority," sermon preached atthe Spring Regional Conference ofthe Independent Baptist Fellowship ofNorth Americaon 21 April 1998 (Mi1waukee, WI: First Baptist Church of Oak Creek, 1998). Nutta11hasbeen prominent in several fundamentalist organizations. Part of the reason forarnbivalence over the term "fundamentalist" is that it has changed in meaning over time

and is, at the moment, rather vague. The influence and probably the number of self-

identified fundamentalists has steadily diminished since the 1920s, and even those whowear the name quarrel over who has the right to c1aimit. Many evangelicals regard the

fundamentalist label as somewhat demeaning and are eager to avoid it. Given this stateof affairs, some confusion over the distinction between evangelicalism and

fundamentalism is hardly avoidable.

9Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement 1930-1956 (The Hague:Mouton and Company, 1963; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981),25-27.



17/50

4

carne to typify neoevangelicalism.i'' Both fundamentalists and neoevangelicals saw it as

amajor difference between them. George M. Marsden's history ofFuller Seminary is

largely a retelling ofthe neoevangelical attempt to moderate the rigorous separatism of

the fundarnentalists. II

While separatism is not theonly difference between fundamentalists and other

evangelicals, it is an important one. It provides a ready test for distinguishing the two

groups. That is why Norman Furniss identified J. Gresharn Machen as a fundamentalist.

Although he saw significant differences between Machen and other fundarnentalists,

Fumiss argued, "[F]or ali these dissimilarities Machen was a Fundamentalist who

contributed much to the conflict in his church. . .. In the end it was Machen the

Fundarnentalist who took the first step toward splitting the denomination when he formed

his own institution as a rival to Princeton Seminary, and it was Machen, finally, who in

the mid-1930's ledhis followers away from the Presbyterian church and into a new

sect.,,12

IORobertFerm, Cooperative Evangelism: Is Billy Graham Right or Wrong?(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), passim.

IIGeorge M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and theNew Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987;Paperback edition 1995), passim but especially 6-7, 64-65, 94-97, 162-71. Other

evangelica1s who address this issue include Ronald H. Nash, The New Evangelicalism(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), 81-97; Millard Erickson, The NewEvangelical Theology (Westwood, NJ : Fleming H. Revell Co., 1968),36-37. Forfundamentalist perspectives see William E. Ashbrook, Evangellcallsm: The NewNeutralism (Mentor, OH: John E. Ashbrook, n.d.), 9-17; Fred Moritz, "Be YeHoly": TheCal/ to Christian Separation (Greenville, se: Bob J ones University Press, 1994),47.

12NormanF. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-1931 (NewHaven: Vale University Press, 1954; reprint, Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1963), 127-28.



18/50

5

Machen's irnrnediate followers seem to have been ambivalent on the question

ofwhether hewas a fundamentalist or even a separatist. Machen's biographer and

colleague, Ned Stonehouse, wished to distance Machen from fundamentalism for severa!

reasons. Stonehouse saw fundamentalists as anti-intellectual, doctrinally reductionistic,

pietistic, otherworldly, futuristic chiliasts. In alI ofthese respects, Machen was unlike

them. In spite ofthese differences, however, Stonehouse clearIy regarded "separation for

conscience' sake" as a Refonnation principIe and was high1y criticaI ofMachen's

opponents who abandoned that principIe. UnquestionabIy, Stonehouse thought that

Machen was a separatist.P

On the other hand, ComeIius Van Til (another Machen colleague) cIaimed

that Machen was not a separatist. Ronald Nash, a leading neoevangelical, took Van Til to

task. Nash argued, "While we recognize that Machen's position is far removed from the

extreme practices of contemporary hyperseparatists and while we even concede that he

may have had good cause to separate, the fact remains that Machen was a separatst.?"

13NedB. Stonehouse, J . Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954),337. Many fundamentalistswould insist that Stonehouse's characterization oftheir movement is unfair. This againpoints up the vagueness ofthe tenn. WhiIe not ali fundamentalists ofStonehouse's daydisplayed the characteristics that he named, enough ofthem did to perpetuate thestereotype.

14Comelius Van Til, "The New Evangelicalism," unpublished paper written atWestrninster Theological Seminary, c. 1960 (photocopy Iocated in "The Fundamentalism

File," Mack Library, Bob Jones University, Greenville, SC): 11; Nash, NewEvangelicalism,82. Part ofthe difference between Van Til and Nash appears to stemfrom a lack of clarity about the tenn separatist. For Nash, anyone who separated was aseparatist. Van Til, however, appears to have thought of a separatist more as someonewho relished separations, a schismatic. Van Til also emphasized that Machen did notleave the Presbyterian Church but was removed.



19/50

6

Machen himselfwas not entirely comfortable with the namefundamentalist.

When he was offered the presidency ofBryan Memorial University, he declined with the

following explanation: "[Tjhoroughly consistent Christianity, tomy mind, is found only

in the Refonned or Calvinistic Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the

Christianity easiest to defendo Hence [ never call myself a 'Fundamentalist.' There is,

indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and ifthe disjunction is between

'Fundamentalism' and 'Modernism,' then I aro willing to call myselfa Fundamentalist of

the most pronounced type. But after ali, what I prefer to call myself is not a

'Fundamentalist' but a 'Calvinist'-that is, an adherent ofthe Reformed Faith.,,15

Debate will continue over whether Machen should becalled a fundaroentalist,

but he clearly meant to exclude some people from the Presbyterian ministry. Writing

about liberaIs in the Presbyterian Church, Machen declared, "A separation between the

two parties in the Church is the crying need ofthe hour." If the liberais would not leave,

then "evangelical Christians must beprepared to withdraw no matter what it costs." Not

long after writing those words, Machen began a series ofbreaks with the Presbyterian

Church, U.S.A., that eventually left him completely separated from the denomination.

One would be hard pressed to find abetter word than separatism to describe Machen's

intentions and actions. 16

15J.Gresham Machen to F. E. Robinson, 25 June 1927, in Stonehouse, J .

Gresham Machen, 428.

16J.Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New Y ork: MacmillanCompany, 1923; reprint, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.), 160,

163.



20/50

7

Machen's situation brings a key question to the surface: Is this kind of

separatism compatible with the Refonned ecclesiology to which he professed loyalty?

This question highlights a tension that is noticeable from the perspectives ofboth

fundamentalist separatism and Refonned ecclesiology.

From the fundamentalist side, the most sustained theological defense of

separatism is probably that ofEmest Pickering. Pickering's argument develops several

themes that seem incompatible with a Refonned understanding ofthe church. For

example, Pickering repudiates the "connectional" view of the church, the view that "in

some fashion a local church is responsible to someone on this earth as well as to the

Lord." He observes that separatists have generally held to congregational polity and have

emphasized the sole headship of Christ over the local church."

Pickering puts his Baptist and dispensationalist commitments in full view

when he attempts to refute the objections to separatismo He remarks that separatists in

general do not accept the Refonned view ofthe church as spiritual Israel. Instead,

separatists insist that the church is a "special creation of God, unique to this age and

composed ofthose who have been placed into it by the baptism ofthe Holy Spirit."

Moreover, "[t]he Church is distinct from the churches. Local churches are composed of

true believers who have banded themselves together for worship, fellowship, and the

propagation ofthe gospel.?"

17EmestPickering, Biblical Separation: The Strugglefor a Pure Church

(Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 174.

18Ibid., 193.



21/50

8

Pickering's theory of separation does not explain how someone who holds

Refonned ecclesiology could come to separatist convictions. If separatism is as bound up

with "gathered church" polity and dispensationaIism as Pickering suggests, then

Presbyterian covenant theologians such as Machen should not be separatists. Y et

Machen professed loyalty to the full Reformed system of doctrine whilc thinking and

acting as a separatist. Moreover, he became the ecclesiastical forefather of several

avowedly Reformed groups that implement some measure of separatismo

This apparent incongruity has not been lost on Machen's critics. In a 1954

history of the conflict within the Presbyterian Church, Lefferts Loetscher took issue with

Machen over two points. First, Loetscher argued that Machen had committed the fallacy

of the "undistributed middle" by classifying Christianity and liberalism as distinct and

mutual1y exclusive religions. Loetscher observed that Machen himselfwas unable to

apply this distinction consistently, for he was ultimately forced to recognize that at least

some liberaIs were also Christians. Second, Loetscher charged that Machen had

grounded his separatism upon Anabaptist or Congregationalist ecclesiology when he

wrote ofthe church as a voluntary society. This, said Loetscher, contradicted the

Presbyterian understanding of an organic church. Tuming the tables on Machen,

Loetscher accused him of acting upon a theory ofthe church that, by Presbyterian

standards, had to bejudged unorthodox."

19Lefferts A. Loetscher, TheBroadening Church: A Study ofTheologicalIssues in the Presbyterian Church Since 1869(n.p.: University ofPennsylvania Press,1954), 116-17. The expression, "Presbyterian Church," when used without any otherqualification, will refer to the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, the

church within which Machen spent most ofhis ministerial career.



22/50

9

Edward John Camell, an early neoevangelicalleader, repeated Loetscher's

second criticism. Although hewas a Baptist, Carnell was impressed with some aspects of

Refonned ecclesiology. He criticized Machen's separatism, arguing that Machen was

guilty of ideological thinking. The real issue, argued Carnell, was the nature of the

church and not the doctrinal compatibility of orthodoxy with modernismo In Refonned

ecclesiology the church does not become apostate when it has modernists in its agencies.

Machen's argument for separatism, however, assumed that the Presbyterian Church had

become apostate by tolerating modernists in its boards. Therefore, Carnell concluded,

Machen failed to uphold the Refonned doctrine ofthe church.20

Was Machen's separatism consistent with Refonned ecclesiology? Pickering

the fundamentalist, Loetscher the broad-churchman, and Carnell the neoevangelical ali

say No. The implication seems to be that Machen, in order to be a separatist, must have

been at least a covert congregationalist.

The answer may not be that simple. Perhaps one might hold to a truly

Refonned ecclesiology and yet implement some fonn of separatismo J. Gresham Machen

offers an opportunity to explore this possibility. In this dissertation I shall set Machen's

separatism against the background of Refonned ecc1esiology in order to evaluate the

consistency ofhis separatism with his ecclesiological commitments. Before I begin this

comparison, however, I shall examine the literature 00Machen's separatismo This

examination will isolate and sharpen crucial questions regarding Machen's separatismo

20Edward John Carnell, The Casefor Orthodox Theology (philadelphia:Westrninster Press, 1959), 114-17.



23/50

10

The Literature on Machen's Se,paratism

The analyses ofMachen's separatism are of different kinds. Machen was a

major figure in a battle that shook the Presbyterian Church. Machen's allies and

opponents published abody ofliterature as part ofthe conflict itself. That literature must

be distinguished from later studies that sought to reflect upon the significance of the

conflict. Machen's death, which occurred soon after bis departure from the Presbyterian

Church, serves as a useful boundary between these two bodies ofliterature. The latter

treatments are especially relevant for this discussion. Principals in the conflict wrote

some of these, but they were all produced after some period of reflection following the

events themselves.

Polemical Treatments

Studies that reflect upon the significance ofMachen's separatism may be

divided into two groups. The first group is polemical in nature. These studies are from

writers who approach Machen and the Presbyterian conflict with a definite bias. They

intend from the outset to make a case either for or against Machen's separatismo Several

of these studies were written in the context of ecclesiastical conflict following Machen's

death.

Lefferts Loetscher

Loetscher's criticisms ofMachen were outlined briefly above. His criticisms

must be treated in more detail, however, because they inform much of the ensuing

discussion ofMachen's separatismo Loetscher's treatment centers upon two documents.

Christianity and Liberalism, authored by Machen, was an important statement ofthe



24/50

11

separatist position. The Aubum Affinnation (as it carne to be called) articulated the

position ofMachen's opponents.

Loetscher rightly summarized Machen's argument in Chrisuanity and

Liberalism by noting that Machen did not see liberalism as a variation ofChristianity, but

as a distinct religion that is actually opposed to Christianity. Ifthis evaluation of

liberalism is granted, said Loetscher, then Machen's logic is inexorable. Christianity and

liberalism "cannot dwell together in the same Christian Church." Christians cannot

remain in the same church with anti-Christians, and they cannot contribute to the support

of an anti-Christian message. Machen insisted that liberais should leave the church.

Failing that, the Christians must wthdraw."

Loetscher challenged this evaluation of liberalism. He stated that Machen

painted liberalism in radically naturalistic terms, then tried to class ali ofhis opponents as

liberaIs, even those who only disagreed on subordinate points. Machen offered such an

extreme caricature of liberalism that he himself could not consistently employ it.

Loetscher argued that Machen himself was forced to recognize some people as true,

evangelical Christians even though they accepted some points ofliberalism. This left

Machen's whole "extremist position" standing "self-condemned."n

Evidence that initially seems to support Loetscher's criticism can be found in

Machen's own writing. For example, Machen discussed individuals who do not accept

21Loetscher, Broadening Church, 116.

lllbid, 116-17.



25/50

12

the doctrines of plenary inspiration or biblical inerrancy, but who do affinn the saving

message ofthe Bible. "Such men," he admitted, "are not really liberals, but Christians;

because they have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends."

Machen also conceded that not all liberals hold to all parts of the liberal system. He

admitted that Christians might be atTectedby liberal teaching at one point without being

atfected at all points. "There is sometimes a salutary lack oflogic which prevents the

whole of a man's faith being destroyed when he has given up a part.,,23

Besides criticizing Machen's treatment ofliberalism, Loetscher also rejected

Machen's understanding ofthe church. He accused Machen ofteaching that the church

as a voluntary society is "created de novo by contract by people who find themselves in

theological agreement." This, said Loetscher, might be good doctrine for Anabaptists or

even Congregationalists, but not for Presbyterians. Loetscher insisted that Presbyterians

see the church as organic, as a body into which people are normally bom. Thus,

Loetscher argued that Machen actually held an unorthodox view of the church.i"

Once again, evidence that appears to support Loetscher's charges is not

difficult to locate. Machen did speak ofthe church as a voIuntary association. He

23Machen, Chrtstianity and Liberalism, 75, 172-73. Whether Machen 'sconcessions actually do support Loetscher's criticisms is one ofthe issues that this

dissertation wiI l explore.

24Loetscher, Broadening Church, 117. Loetscher's insistence that individuais

are normally bom into the Presbyterian Church has led to spirited controversy. One ofthe most telling observations comes from Gary North, who points out the irony that thePresbyterian controversy carne to a head over the issue of missions. The work ofmissions presumes that people are becoming Presbyterians through voluntary conversionand association, not through birth. Crossed Fingers: How the Liberais Captured thePresbyterian Churcb (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996),901.



26/50

13

contrasted it with involuntary organizations such as the state, to which one must belong

"whether he will or no." Evangelical churches are not involuntary in that sense. Rather,

they are voIuntary associations composed of persons who have "come to agreement in a

certain message about Christ and who desire to unite in the propagation of that message,

as it is set forth in their creed on the basis ofthe BibIe." Since no one is forced to unite

with such a body, the imposition of creedal or doctrinaI standards poses no interference

with individual lberty."

Edward John Camell

Camell's treatment ofMachen in The Casefor Orthodox Theology stemmed

partIy from his own frustration with the fundamentalist mentality. Since Camell wanted

the book to be noticed by separatist fundamentalists, he wrote more blunt1y than usual.

He portrayed Machen as an outspoken critic and a foe ofthe fundamentalist movement,

which is sureIy an overstatement. He also criticized Machen's separatism quite sharply."

According to Camell, Machen took the position that "when the church has

modernists in its agencies and among its officially supported missionaries, a Christian has

no other course than to withdraw support." That is why Machen founded the

Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. When the General Assembly

ordered that the board be dissolved, Machen disobeyed, claiming that he could appea1

2SMachen, Christianity and Liberalism, 168. Whether Machen's concessionsare incompatible with Reformed ecclesiology wiIl be a key topic in this dissertation.

26Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, 188-90; Carnell, The CaseforOrthodox Theology, 114-15.



27/50

14

from the General Assembly to the constitution ofthe church. On Camell's view, this

represents "ideological thinking," for in a federal system such as Presbyterianism,

supreme judicial power must be vested in one court. By fixing upon the evil of

modemism, Machen forgot about the evil ofanarchy. Even ifthe General Assembly was

wrong, Machen ought to have obeyed until its demands were rescinded. For Machen to

think that he could appea1 from the General Assembly to the constitution was "cultiC.,,27

Camell thought that another issue was even more important. The real

question under trial in the Machen atrair was not merely the compatibility of orthodoxy

and modemism, but the nature of the church itself. Camell argued that the church does

not become apostate when it has modernists in its agencies or among its officially

supported missionaries. He was emphatic on this point: "Unfaithful ministers do not

render the church apostate." According to Camell, Machen's separatism both stemmed

from and gave rise to pride and pretense. Machen's mentality was one of status by

negation. When his followers could no longer find modernists from whom to separate,

they began to separate from one another.28

Comelius Vao Til

Edward Camell and Robert Ferm were neoevangelica1 authors who wrote to

oppose separatist fundamentalism. An important reply to Camell and Ferm carne from

27Camell, The Casefor Orthodox Theology, 115. Camell overstates Machen'sargument regarding the presence of modernists in the mission board. See the discussion

in Chapter 2.

28Ibid., 115-17.



28/50

15

Comelius Van Til, who produced a seventy-six page paper entitled "The New

Evangelicalism." Though Van Til never published the paper, it was widely circulated by

his students and peers. Van Til attempted to stake out a position for Machen midway

between fundamentalism and neoevangelicalism. As part of its argument the paper

examined the problem ofMachen's separatismo

According to Van Til, Machen knew that schism was a sino The problem for

Machen, however, was that some members of the Presbyterian Church denied the Christ

upon whom the church was founded. Therefore, "[w]hen the church no longer

proclaimed the substitutionary death of Christ as central to its teaching it was no longer

the church ofChrist." On1yunder such circumstances did Machen organize an

Independent Board to pursue the task of Presbyterian missions.f"

Van Til insisted that Machen was not looking for a perfect church. Machen

would not have left his church over the presence of some modernists. lnstead, Machen

was removed from the Presbyterian Church. In Van Til's opinion, those who removed

Machen had transformed the church into a club. To qualify for membership in the club,

one merely had to believe in a vaguely spiritual view oflife. Van Til thought that insofar

as the Presbyterian Church was this sort of a club, it was not achurch. That is why he

could insist, "Machen's position was not sectarian or separatist.',Jo

Besides defending Machen, Van Til took the offensive against Carnell and

Ferm. He suggested that ifthe Refonners had held Carnell's view ofthe church, then the

29Comelius Van Til, "The New Evangelica1ism," 10-11.

30Ibid., 11.



29/50

16

Refonnation would never have occurred. The church of their day had not departed as far

from the Christ ofthe Scriptures as had the church ofMachen's day. Indeed, V an Til

thought that the new evangelicaIism perpetuated the same doctrinal "indifferentism" that

Machen had despised in his day. This indifferentism was most evident in Billy Graham's

prograni of cooperative evangelism. Those who truly believed in missions and

evangelism-as Machen had-could not afford to be indifferent to the denial of the

gospel. Machen organized the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions

precisely because he could not cooperate with those who denied the gospel."

Van Til did acknowledge an inconsistency in the notion of an independent

Presbyterian board. Machen, he said, knew that such a board was not a normal thing.

The work of missions and evangelism belongs to the church. But faced with a choice

between church-centered evangelism under the control of modernists and independently

conducted evangelism in the hands of those who preached the gospel, he chose the latter.

Still, he knew that the situation would have to be corrected as soon as possible.32

Ronald Nash

While taking issue with Carnell at some points, Nash nevertheless subjected

Machen 's separatism to criticaI examination and ultimately attempted to refute it. Nash

conceded that Machen's premises may have been true, but insisted that his argument for

separatism was nonetheless invalid inasmuch as the conclusions did not follow

31Ibid., 11,23-24.

32Ibid.,28.



30/50

17

necessarily from the premises. Those premises had to do with the nature of Christianity.

As Nash observed, Machen argued that Christianity has to be defined historically. Not

everyone who claims the name Christian is necessarily entitled to it. The only way to

discover what really constitutes Christianity is to go back to its founding document, the

Bible. While the founders ofChristianity may not have had the right to legislate belief

for all subsequent generations, they certainly held the right to legislate what Christianity

would mean. This does not give present-day analysts the right to decide infallibly

whether any individual liberal is a Christian, but it does give them the right to say that

liberalism is not Christianity. liberais or modemists have a perfect right to their beliefs,

but they do not have the right to call their system Christianity. These were Machen's

premises as Nash understood them, and with these he agreed.33

What Nash denied is that any ofthis necessitates separatismo Nash did not

reject separation entirely. Indeed, he pointed to Luther and the Reformation as an

instance when separation definitely was required. But Nash asked, "Might it ever be the

case that the Christian, while despairing of liberal tendencies within his denomination,

would draw back from separation rea1izing that it could possibly do more harm than

good?" In fact, Nash suggested that Machen's separatism might have led to the repeated

divisions that plagued bis followers."

33Nash,The New Evangelicalism, 83-86.

34Ibid., 87. Nash does not seem to appreciate that Machen regarded

separatism as a last resort. Though Machen had known ofliberals within thePresbyterian Church for years, he only began to separate when hethought that they hadbegun to control the councils ofthe church. See the discussion in Chapter 2.



31/50

18

Even though he rejected Machen's separatism, Nash refused to accept

Camell 's criticisms. He gave three reasons for bis disagreement with Camell. In the first

place, he thought that Camell was unclear about what he was objecting to. Second, Nash

thought that Camell's case was deficient. Camell gave the impression that he was

willing simply to overlook unbelief. He introduced vague qualifications. He failed to

explain what constitutes apostasy. Third, Nash believed that Camell's attack on Machen

created confusion not only about Camell's own point ofview, but about the viewpoint of

evangelicals (by which Nash meant new evangelicals) in genera1.3S

Edwin Rian

The criticism provided by Edwin Rian is unique among the published

rejections ofMachen's separatismo Rian began as an ally ofMachen. He became one of

the early leaders ofWestminster Seminary, first secretary ofthe Independent Board for

Presbyterian Foreign Missions, and author ofthe major defense ofMachen's separation

from the Presbyterian Church. He was defrocked along with Machen and his allies, and

helped to found the Presbyterian Church of America (later the Orthodox Presbyterian

Church). In June of 1947, however, ostensibly following a study ofthe fourth book of

Calvin's Institutes, Rian altered bis position. He approached the Philadelpbia Presbytery,

confessed his previous actions as sins, and articulated bis new position in a brief, printed

statement. He sought and received re-ordination in the Presbyterian Church. After a

distinguished career in several Presbyterian institutions, he was invited to return to

3Slbid., 88-91.



32/50

19

Princeton Seminary by President Jarnes I. McCord as a special assistant to the president.

During those years, he began delivering an annuallecture in Edward A. Dowey's course

on Presbyterian history. He would give bis own reminisces of the conflict in the

Presbyterian Church in the V.S.A., followed by his revised evaluation of the separatist

movement in wbich he had once participated. This lecture was edited for length and

published in 1984. All ofthese documents-Rian's early defense ofMachen's

separatism, bis statement to the Pbiladelpbia presbytery, and bis later recantation-are of

great interest for the present study."

Rian's early defense ofMachen's separatism revolved around bis

understanding that doctrinal subscription was necessary for ordination candidates in the

Presbyterian Church. Rian observed that this church s a creedal church because its

ministers and officers must pledge loyalty to the Westminster Confession ofFaith as the

system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture. He argued that this pledge need not

involve assent to every article ofthe Westminster Confession, but that it must involve

36EdwinH. Rian, The Presbyterian Conflict (Grand Rapids: Williarn B.Eerdmans Publisbing Company, 1940); "Why I Am Asking to Re-Enter the Ministry ofthe Presbyterian Church in the V.S.A.," Typescript, arcbives ofthe Montgomery Library,Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia; "Theological Contlicts ofthe 1920sand 1930s in the Presbyterian Church and un the Princeton Seminary Campus,"

Princeton Seminary Bulletin, n.s., 5 (1984): 216-23. Rian claimed that a reading ofCalvin's Institutes was responsible for bis confession and retum to the PresbyterianChurch. Documents found in the archives ofMontgomery Library, WestminsterTheologica1 Seminary, Pbiladelpbia, however, indicate the possibility of another cause.On file is a copy of an untitled ecclesiastical complaint against Rian for misappropriationof funds. Upon learning that he was going to be charged and tried within the Orthodox

Presbyterian Church, Rian suddenly left that Church and retumed to the PresbyterianChurch in theV.S.A. Due to bis hasty exit from the OPC, he was never actually chargedor tried. Had he rernained, disciplinary action seerns quite likely.



33/50

20

more than a mere acceptance that the Westminster Confession contains the "substance of

doctrine" found in Scripture.37

Not every article in the confession is essential to the system of doctrine, but

some are. Arnong these essentials are the tive points that were affinned by the General

Assembly of 1923 (the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, His

substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection, and His miracles). These tive points

are not the unique property of Refonned theology oc even of Protestantism, but are

shared by "all Christians, Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Greek Orthodox alike."

These points are "essential to any system of doctrine that calls itself'Christan.t''"

Rian believed that "at least some of the program of the Board ofForeign

Missions was unfaithful to the teachings ofthe Bible as detined by the Westminster

Confession ofFaith." Support ofthe missionary program ofthe church thus involved

church ministers and members in the propagation of anti-Christian teachings. The church

stood in need ofreform, and part ofthat refonn bad to involve arefusal to support the

denominational missions. This is what led Macben and bis allies to establish the

Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. By interpreting the Confession of

Faith so as to allow for the doctrinal divergence, the General Assembly effectively altered

the confession. The demand that the Independent Board be dissolved and that its

founders support the denominational missions program was tantamount to a demand that

Machen and bis followers put human authority in the place ofGod's. As Rian put it, "A

37Rian, Presbyterian Conflict, 43-44, 212.

38Ibid., 46-47.



34/50

21

missionary program that was contrary to the teachings ofthe Bible was forced upon the

church and its members and the penalty for lack of support and for effective criticism was

suspension from the ministry." This created asituation almost exactly parallel to that

which was faced by Luther and the Reformers. Machen and his allies could not back

down without betraying the Word of God."

Rian conceded that at the time of the separation, the standards of the

Presbyterian Church were still sound. He emphasized, however, that theofficial

interpretations of the standards by the General Assembly rendered the church apostate.

Moreover, he argued that the boards, agencies, and courts of the church were dominated

by people who were entirely out of accord with the doctrines of the church. More

ministers were coming into the church each year who either rejected the fundamental

doctrines or who were indifferent toward those who did. No official church seminary

was devoted to teaching vigilance with respect to the standards. Any attempt to reform

the church was therefore doomed to falure."

In his request for re-ordination in the Presbyterian Church, Rian repudiated

the separatism that hehad earlier defended. Citing Calvin, he argued that the visible

church a1ways includes both good and evil people, both hypocrites and true believers.

Pure membership, he said, is not a mark of a true church. The marks include the

preaching ofthe Word and the proper administration ofthe sacraments. These marks are

to be sought in the artic1esof faith and in the profession of doctrine of the church, and

39Ibid., 208-9, 212-13.

40Ibid., 259, 275.



35/50

22

even though the practice of that church is not always in accord with that doctrine it is stiU

atrue church.'.41

Roman Catholicism had subverted the marks, so Calvin was justified in

leaving that church. But believers should not leave a true church, that is, a church that

offers a correct creedal profession, even ifthe church does not live up to its profession.

Rian wrote, "Whenever a church in its profession of doctrine adheres to the Bible as the

Word ofGod and the administration ofthe sacraments according to the institution of

Christ, even though the practice of the church may not be up to its profession and even

though there may be hypocrites and unbelievers in the society, that church is a true,

visible Church of J esus Christ. Anyone separating from such a communion is disrupting

the unity ofthe Church of J esus ChriSt.,.42

In his lecture and article, Rian repudiated the role that Machen and his allies

played in the Presbyterian conflict for three reasons. First, heargued that they were

fighting Christians rather than spiritual enemies. This was because they had elevated

"certain convictions and declare[d] them to be essential to a church." Thus, Rian

admitted that the issues over which hehad once separated were ''what I call non-essential

doctrines ofthe Church.'.43

Second, Rian confessed to "self-righteousness and an intolerance in the

attitude of withdrawal.' The specific manifestation ofthis attitude was the conviction

41Rian, ''Why I Am Asking to Re-Enterthe Ministry," 1-3.

42Ibid.,6.

43Rian, ''Theological Conflicts," 221.



36/50

23

that "we were absolutely right and the rest ofthe world was wrong." It is unclear from

Rian's treatment why he thought that this attitude was aproblem. Rian did not say why

certainty of conviction would make one wrong, nor did he indicate how much less certain

he was ofhis new convictions than he had been ofthe older ones. My point is not to

dispute Rian's claim so much as to observe that his criticism is not clear. Ifhe meant

only to reject a censorious attitude, then why would he single out separatists as ifthis

fault were peculiar to them?"

Third, Rian claimed that Machen's separatism grew out ofa "certain rigidity

of doctrine." When Rian was a separatist he thought of doctrine as a closed system.

Later, he came to believe that creeds are dated and that they reflect the views of the time

during which they were written. In his later writing henoted that human understanding

oftruth is in a process of development. The house oftruth has no roof00it-while truth

is eternal, human interpretation of and insight into the truth is a growing thing. Christians

ought not to separate over such issues. The church fathers, he wrote, unifonnly opposed

such separation. Rian made a point of including Charles Hodge, the famous Princeton

theologian, as one who opposed the kind ofseparatism that Machen exemplfied."

Rian's criticism pointedly raised the issue ofwhether Machen's separatism is

compatible with Refonned ecclesiology. Indeed, for Rian, the issue was not simply

Reformed ecclesiology, but specifically the Princeton ecclesiology ofCharles Hodge.

Hodge's ecclesiology represents one ofseveral options within the broader Refonned

44lbid., 221-22.

4slbid., 222-23.



37/50

24

tradition. It was in the tradition of Hodge that Machen was trained at Princeton. Rian

charged that Machen was not simply unfaithful to Refonned ecclesiology, but even to his

own Princeton tradition.

Gary North

Gary North's history ofthe Presbyterian conflict is as unusual as it is detailed.

The fruit of more than thirty years of research, this thousand-page book is nearly an

encyclopedia of the Presbyterian conflict. It is not, however, a work of dispassionate

scholarship. North admits that the book "is not written in the spirit of detached academic

inquiry. It is written in the spirit of conquest: to recapture lost ground from the spiritual

heirs ofthe invaders." Even though North was not a participant in the conflict, he is a

partisan. The work therefore qualifies as the latest ofthe polemical treatments."

North agrees with Machen's thesis that Cbristianity and liberalism are distinct

and incompatible religions. Liberals, says North, are committed to "power religion," the

religious viewpoint that affinns that "the most important goal for a man, group, or

species, is the capture and maintenance ofpower." Religious liberals are to the church

what social liberais are to the political structure. Their central confession involves a

"self-certified, se/f-appointed, se/f-perpetuating administra tive elite 'slegitimate control

over other people's

money-other people being the majority, which affinns a rival

confession. ,,47

4~0rth, Crossed Fingers, xx.

47Ibid.,46, 888.



38/50

25

The entrance ofliberaIs into the Presbyterian Church during the second half of

the nineteenth century was made possible by the reunion ofthe Old and New School

Presbyterian Churches. In North's opinion, that reunion took place on the New School's

tenns. Those tenns included a reluctance to prosecute hercsy cxcept in the most obvious

and extreme cases."

The liberaIs were able to solidify their positions because the Old School

theologians-particularly the Princeton theologians-made two vital concessions. First,

they were willing to meet the liberals on a common ground that was supposed to be

ideologically neutral. This concession is illustrated by thejoint publication of the

Presbyterian Review. The willingness to treat liberaIs as equal partners in ecclesiastical

conversation lent an aura of respectability to the liberal position."

The second concession that the Old School made involved looseness in its

handling ofthe Westminster Confession. Old School thinkers attempted to distance

themselves from those provisions ofthe confession that involved the church's

relationship to the civil authority. They were uncomfortable with its implicit recognition

of infant damnation. They abandoned its seven-day creationism in favor of a variety of

views ranging from the gap theory to theistic evolution. They tlatly contradicted its

statements on the preservation of Scripture when they chose to pursue textual criticism as

a supposedly "neutral" science. They were not even careful about guarding their own

citadel at Princeton, as is evidenced by their willingness to bring Machen onto the faculty

48Ibid., 141-44.

49Ibid., 141-44; 170-74.



39/50

26

while he still entertained doubts about Christian orthodoxy. For these reasons, the Old

School was not in a strong position to challenge liberaIs who treated the confession

loosely.i"

The position ofthe Old School was further damaged by the confessional

revision of 1903. It was worsened again by the merger with the Cumberland

Presbyterians in 1906. By the time that Machen emerged as a leader during the 1920s the

Calvinism ofthe church had become so diluted that Machen could not appeal for rigid

enforcement ofthe Westminster standards. Instead, he had to settle for the weakened

emphasis upon essential and necessary doctrines articulated in the 1910deliverance.

Thus, in his struggle to save the Presbyterian Church from liberalism, Machen virtually

capitulated to fundamentalism. When even the weakened five-point declaration proved

to be unenforceable, Machen deliberately provoked a confrontation, knowing that it

would result in bis own expulsion from the church."

According to North, Machen thought that his expulsion would force the

liberals and indifferentists to demonstrate that they had abandoned the confession. North

believes that this particular goal was accomplished. While Machen's opponents have

always insisted that the issues were administrative and not theological, bis expulsion

from the church was a theological statement. It was an affirmation ofthe liberaIs' power

religion. "In 1935 and 1936, men who had long denied the legitimacy of imposing

sanctions to defend the Westminster Confession's stipulations applied sanctions against

SOIbid.,163-67; 174-75; 596-98.

SIIbid., 352-60; 314-15.



40/50

27

those who did affirm its authority. There is no escape from sanctions. The question in

1936 was this: By which confession-the offieial one or the unoffieial one?,,52

North's work includes a wealth ofinfonnation that canoot be found in any

other single source. His interpretation, however, is marred by his insistence upon tuming

the discussion into a polemic for postmillennialism, presuppositionalism, and theonomy.

This flaw is exacerbated by North's own attitude. As he himselfsays, he is "about as

subtle as a high voltage cattle prod." While the continuous poIemic tends to pall after

several hundred pages, North's argument does have the virtue of clarity. He makes his

point. He offers an interesting ifunusual argument that the battle for the controI ofthe

Presbyterian Church was lost because of a much earIier shift in doctrine and emphasis.

He shows how, given his assumptions, Anninians, premillennialists, and revivalists were

as much to blame as the liberaIs themseIves. In effect, he grants Loetscher's contention

that the Presbyterian Church had been broadening Iong before controversy over

liberaIism erupted. On North 's understanding, however, that concession does not excuse

later developments in the church. Rather, it stands as ao indictment of American

Presbyterianism for a century before Machen' s defrocking.f'

Academic Treatments

J . Gresham Machen's separatism was once considered only as a topic of

ecclesiastical controversy. Recently, however, it has attracted more attention from the

52Ibid.,315.

531bd .1 ., XXXI.



41/50

28

acadernic community. Scholars from several disciplines have taken an interest in the

forces that led to Machen's departure from the Presbyterian Church. Severa1ofthe most

important discussions wiIl be summarized here.

William D. Livingstone

One ofthe earliest treatments ofMachen's thought was by William

Livingstone at Vale University. Livingstone attempted to trace aPrinceton approach to

apologetics through Machen and B. B. Warfield. One part ofLivingstone's thesis comes

to bear directly upon Machen's separatismo Livingstone suggested that Machen,

following Warfield, failed to recognize the distinction between two very different types

of liberals. Livingstone called one group the extreme liberais or the modemists. The

other group hedesignated as the modem positivists. Livingstone argued that a wide gulf

separated these two versions ofliberalism. S4

Livingstone's terminology is awkward, but bis distinction between these two

types ofliberals parallels the distinction drawn by Winthrop Hudson between

"evangelical liberals" and "scientific rnodemists," Hudson recognized both groups as

genuinely liberal, but observed a significant difference between them. Livingstone also

saw this difference and attempted to define it in bis dssertaton."

S4WilliamD. Livingstone, "The Princeton Apologetic As Exemplified by theWork ofBenjamin B. Warfield andJ . Gresham Machen: A Study in American Theology1880-1930" (Ph.D. diss., Y ale University, 1948), 229-30.

sSWinthrop S. Hudson, Religion in America, 2d ed. (New Y ork: CharlesScribner's Sons, 1973),269-77. The distinction is also elaborated by Sydney E.Ahlstrom, A Religious History of lhe American People (New Haven: Y ale UniversityPress, 1972), 781-83.



42/50

29

According to Livingstone, modernists were less hesitant than modem

positivists about rejecting their heritage and experimenting with new presuppositions and

categories. Therefore, their views carne into conflict with Christian orthodoxy. Modem

positivists, however, were more reluctant to discard the traditional faith. While they may

have set aside the forms in which it had been expressed, they believed that its essence

could be conserved and interpreted in the terms of the modem age. M odemists drew

heavily from the natural sciences for their basic presuppositions. They also tended to be

more naturalistic in their approach. Modem positivists held to a modified

supernaturalism and were motivated by the results ofbiblica1 criticism. M odem

positivists did not stand very far from Christian orthodoxy-indeed, in L ivingstone's

estimation they were justified in c1aiming to represent the true Reformed faith.S6

To M achen, however, a liberal was a liberal. According to Livingstone,

M achen followed Warfield in pursuing an all-or-nothing strategy. The Princetonians

lumped both groups under the single category ofliberalism and labeled that whole

category as heterodoxo In order to categorize the two versions ofliberalism together as

one group, the Princeton apologists had to falsify the facts. For example, they accused

modem positivists of dispensing with an authoritative Bible, whereas modem positivists

actually recognized biblica1 authority in a way that modernists did noto By refusing to

acknowledge the difference between these two types ofliberals, Warfield and Machen

forced the modem positivists into an alliance with the modernists. This was unfortunate,

for the modem positivists might have been ready al1iesofthe conservatives against the

S6Ibid.,230-33.



43/50

30

naturalism ofthe modernists. By trying to prove toa much, Machen and Warfield did

real damage to the cause of conservatism. S7

DaIlas M. Roark

Dallas M. Roark's University ofIowa dissertation is one ofthe benchmarks in

the discussion ofMachen's separatismo Roark responded directly to the argument of

Loetscher and Camell that Machen abandoned a Reformed view of the church for a more

congregational view. Roark's thesis revolves around two propositions. First, Machen 's

actions "rnust be interpreted in the light ofhis desire for a doctrinalIy 'true Presbyterian

Church. '" Second, Machen's understanding of a doctrinally true Presbyterian Church

was defined by the conviction that "all teaching or accredited officers of the church must

give full subscription to the Westrninster Confession ofFaith."S8

Roark managed to fit together several aspects of Machen' s thought in a

convincing way. Machen wanted church officers to subscribe to the standards honestly,

which meant unreservedIy and unambiguousIy. This strict subscriptionism applied only

to teaching officers of the church, not to alI members. By denying that the doctrines

specified in the five-point decIaration were fundamentals, the Aubum Affirmationists

pIaced themselves in the position of condoning heresy. Fo~Machen, the debate centered

upon a smalI group offundamental doctrines. Roark compared Machen's fight with

liberalism to the earlier battles fought by Francis L. Patton. Patton had opposed revision

S7Ibid.,255-56, 279-80.

s8DalIas M. Roark, "J.Gresham Machen and His Desire to Maintain a

Doctrinally True Presbyterian Church" (Ph.D. diss., State University ofIowa, 1963), 7.



44/50

31

ofthe confession over issues like predestination and infant damnation. Roark argued that

the Refonned system of faith was at stake in both cases.59

Machen believed that belonging to atrue church was a command of Christ.

Because it tolerated liberaIs, the Presbyterian Church was beginning to be dominated by

unbelief. That church was increasingly unfaithful both to its own standards and to the

Bible. Ifthe Presbyterian Church was no longer a true church, then a separation had to

take place. Ifthe liberais would not leave (or could not be ousted), then Christians must

seek adoctrinally true church. Such aseparation would not be schismatic, because

schisrn involves withdrawal from a true church.t"

Unlike Loetscher and Camell, Roark did not agree that Machen's ecclesiology

was congregational. He argued that Presbyterian polity does incorporate agenuinely

voluntary element, especially with respect to church membership. He noted that when

Machen wrote that the church was a voluntary society, he had the church's teachers and

not the church's members in mind. Roark offered substantial evidence that Machen's

theory ofthe church as a voluntary organization does lie within the parameters of

Refonned ecclesology."

Roark did not allow Machen to escape without criticism, however. For

example, Roark believed that Calvin did not support Machen's sharp distinction between

59Ibid., 147, 149, 150, 156, 166-67.

6OIbid.,177-78.

61Ibid., 179-90, 192-93. As evidence, Roark cited John Calvin Institutes of lheChristian Religion 4.1.12, 4.19.13; Tracts and Treatises, transeHenry Beveridge (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), 34.



45/50

32

church members and church leaders. In Calvin, the minister does not subscribe to a creed

at his ordination because as a member ofthe church, he has already done so. Machen's

sharp distinction between clergy and laity propelled his ecclesiology in ahierarchical

direction and thus went beyond the Reformation.f

Roark also disagreed with Machen's strict subscriptionism. He thought that

the F orm of Government of the Presbyterian Church granted more latitude. The

Confession of Faith denies that human synods and councils are inerrant. It insists that

they are not to be made the rule offaith. In Roark's opinion, this meant that the church

should not make the confession into a test of orthodoxy. He wrote, "It is one thing to

submit to the Standards as the criterion oftrue doctrine and another to use them as ahelp

or to accept them categorically but not verbally." Roark clearly favored the latter

approach. For Roark, full doctrinal confonnity was an ideal, not a requirernent. He

noted that the F orm of Government permits ordination candidates to express scruples

about doctrines. The presbyteries must decide how serious those scruples are. As Roark

saw it, the candidate who had doubts about a particular doctrine could still be regarded as

subscribing to the "system of doctrine" as a whole and might still receive ordination.t'

Roark also criticized Machen from the perspective of the Presbyterian

tradition in the United States. He argued that from the time ofthe Adopting Act onwards,

many or most American Presbyterians favored amore relaxed fonn of subscription than

62Roark, "J. Gresham Machen," 191-96.

63Ibid.,200. This criticism is puzzling, since Machen also recognized that fullsubscription did not demand agreernent with every statement in the confession. See thediscussion ofMachen's view ofsubscription in Chapter 2.



46/50

33

that advocated by Machen. Roark conceded that American Presbyterianism had ahigh

church party that favored strict subscriptionism, but he insisted that other viewpoints

have always modified this tendency towards doctrinal rigidity. As examples ofthis

tension between the looser and stricter attitudes, Roark cited the compromise wording of

the Adopting Act, the occasional revisions ofthe Confession ofFaith, and the conflict

between the Old School and the New School. He argued that these American differences

could be traced back to different parties in the Westminster Assembly itself, where the

English Presbyterians tended to oppose full subscription while the Scottish Presbyterians

endorsed it. Roark thought that both attitudes were part ofthe American Presbyterian

tradition. This put Machen's defeat in the Presbyterian conflict into perspective.

"Having divided over the issue of subscription in both the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries and having reunited on amore comprehensive basis, American Presbyterians

were not inclined to follow Machen into the same old division once more.,,64

For another criticism, Roark drew insights about denominationalism fromthe

social theories ofEmst Troeltsch and ElwynJ . Srnith. Roark noted that denominations

tend to be characterized by bureaucracy, toleration, and self-preservation. What Machen

disparagingly called "indifferentism" may actually have been an indication ofhow far

denominationalloyalty and tolerance had advanced by the 1930s. By threatening the

denominational structures (as he did in the fonnation ofthe Independent Board), Machen

presented a threat that could not be ignored."

64lbid., 200-208.

6Slbid.,208-13.



47/50

34

In his sharpest criticism, Roark charged that Machen exaggerated the

influence ofliberalism within the Presbyterian Church. Machen was perfectly free to

preach the orthodoxy that he believed. The Westminster Confession was still the official

symbol ofthe church. The overwhelming majority ofthe churches and ministers could

subscribe to it in the strictest ofterms. This implied a misjudgment on Machen's parto

Machen particularly misjudged the influence ofliberalism in the Foreign Mission Board.

The actual number of liberais was very small, but one or two cases contarninated the

whole board in Machen's mind. Ultimately, Machen's real conflict was not with the

liberals, but with a middle group that was orthodox but tolerant. This third group held the

real power, and this was the group that eventually brought about Machen's downfall.t"

Overall, Roark's evaluation ofMachen was twofold. On the one hand, he

rejected the argument that Machen was an incipient congregationalist. On the other hand,

he denied that Machen's separatism wasjustified. As a final evidence, he invited

consideration of the repeated splintering that characterized the ecclesiastical heirs of

Machen. "The splintering is bound up with a demand for exact doctrinal conformity and

fighting and bickering continue until eventually results a split.,,67

George M. Marsden

InThe Evangelical Mind and the New Schoo/ Presbyterian Experience,

George M. Marsden sets Machen's separatism in the context ofthe earlier Presbyterian

66Ibid., 213-16.

67Ibid., 216-17.



48/50

35

divisions of 1741 and 1837. Marsden rejects the notion that the theologicalliberalism of

Machen's day stands in essential continuity with the New Side and New School

movements. While the New School did represent the doctrinally tolerant position, it had

great affinities with some aspects of Presbyterian fundamentalism. Those affinities

incIuded revivalism, moralistic reformism, strict biblicism, a low view ofthe church,

millennialism, and an emphasis upon the fundamentala/"

Marsden admits that Machen and his immediate successors at Westminster

Theological Seminary held the Old School position. Nevertheless, Marsden argues, Old

School Presbyterianism was not the only influence among Machen's allies. He singles

out Carl McIntire as the leader ofthe dissidents who divided Machen's Presbyterian

Church in America. Marsden thinks that Mclntire resembled New School Presbyterians

in several respects. These included Mclntire's tolerance of dispensational

premillennialism, his backing of an independent board, bis insistence upon total

abstinence from alcoholic beverages, bis claim to represent "American Presbyterianism,"

his political activism, bis emphasis upon interdenominational cooperation, and bis lack of

concem for strict Presbyterian pOlity.69

680eorge M. Marsden, TheEvangelical Mind and lhe New SchoolPresbyterian Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 245-46. Thearguments that Marsden employs in this work are substantially the same as those in bisarticIe, "The New School Heritage and Presbyterian Fundamentalism," WestminsterTheoiogical J ournal32 (spring 1970): 129-47.

69Ibid.,246-47. In faimess it must be noted that present-day BiblePresbyterians would insist that some ofthese characterizations ofMclntire and bisfollowers (for example, the toleration of dispensationalism and the lack of concem forPresbyterian polity) are not wholly accurate.



49/50

36

Marsden does not mean to suggest that New School thought was the only, or

even the most important, influence upon Mclntire and bis followers. But to the extent

that the influence is evident (and Marsden thinks that it is), then the controversy

surrounding Machen cannot be made into a simple replaying ofthe Old School-New

School fracture of 1837. IfMarsden is correct, then one oftwo possibilities follows. The

first is that a Presbyterian can move into separatism from either the Old School or New

School position, in which case the impetus for separatism must lie in some factor that is

cornrnon to both positions. The second is that the ditTerences between the Old and New

Schools had been transcended before the 1920s among both the separatists and the

incIusivists, and possibly among the liberais as well. Therefore, using the Old School-

New School terminology for the events in the 1920s is anachronistic.

Marsden focuses upon Machen's thought also in Fundamentalism and

American Culture. After noting the differences between Machen and some ofhis allies,

Marsden suggests that the cohesiveness oftheir opposition to liberalism can be explained

by one cornrnon, underlying assumption. "Despite their differences, they agreed that

knowledge of the truth was of overriding and eternal significance, that truth was

unchanging, and that it could be known by true science and cornrnon sense.?"

Marsden illustrates this assumption by contrasting Machen with another

conservative, E. Y . Mullins. Mullins attempted to defend supernatural Christianity by

removing religion from the sphere of pbilosophy and science, relocating it within the

70GeorgeM. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New Y ork:Oxford University Press, 1980),216.



50/50

37

sphere of personal experience. Machen responded that religion, science, and philosophy

alI deal with facts. By replacing the appeal to facts with the appeal to subjective religious

experience, Mullins conceded too much to modem thought. Facts should be approached

in a common-sense manner. Not to do so was unscientific and anti-intellectual."

Marsden makes the same point in an article on Machen's view ofhistory.

Machen differed from his contemporaries when he admitted that supernatural forces

could act upon human history. Machen also defined the role offacts differently than did

many historians ofhis day. He thought that facts had a fixed significance and that

biblical history is built on this significance. Therefore, Machen rejected alI forms of

subjectivism or relativism in the study ofbiblical history. He hardly seems to have left

room even for differing points of view from which the facts might be examined. In

Marsden's opinion, Machen did not appreciate how completely historians are situated in

and shaped by their own location in history.72 Marsden does not explicitly point out how

these attitudes led Machen into separatism, but he sees their importance to Machen's

thought. As we shall see, these attitudes bear directly upon Machen's separatismo

Ki Hong Kim

Ki Hong Kim attempts to trace the mutual influence of fundamentalism and

Princeton theology upon each other. He is particularly intrigued by the conflict between

two groups ofPresbyterians that were equally conservative in theology, but which

7lIbid., 216-17.

720eorge M Marsden "J Gresham Machen Histor and Truth " Westminster

Eclessiology de Machen e Hodge1

Documents

Transcript of Eclessiology de Machen e Hodge1