June 1924
T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
341
The Fn)e Points and the General Assembly Rev. A. Gordon MacLennan, D. D., P asto r, B ethany P resby terian Church, Philadelphia, Penn. This address was given a t a P resbyterian mass m eeting in New York City. Dr. MacLennan says regarding it: “ It may cause some of our good P resbyterians to investigate th e au tho rity of th e General Assembly and th e S tandards c f our church, for themselves.” ,
|H E whole world, and especially the Church of Jesus Christ, is conscious of the fact th a t a tre mendous controversy is on in th e Churches. Rollin Lynde H artt, in the “W orld’s W ork,” may be rig h t in describing it as “The W ar in th e Churches.” The attem p t is being made by some m inisters to ignore the controversy, and to ' convince themselves and others th a t it is merely superficial ta lk th a t will blow away after a sh o rt time. Such an a ttitu d e is not only blind b u t tre mendously dangerous when the issues which are at stake are considered. The E d ito r of the Christian Century, the most ration al istic of all our religious weeklies, in th e issue of Janu ary 3, clearly states the issue. “Tw o w orld s h ave crashed, the w orld of tra d itio n and the w orld of m odernism . One is sc1 1 pla stic , ^ t ,, t i.- u ut.hori!.arian, in d iv id u a listic; the other is vita.TTdvna.Tmc. tree, socfect: There i3~ fTTfiislr"'here as profound - a r id a s grim a s th a t betw een C h ristia n ity and C onfucianism . Am iable w ords can n ot hide the difference. 'B lest be the tie th a t bin ds’ m ay be su n g till doom sday but it can n ot bind th ese tw o w orld s to g eth er. The God o f th e fu n d am en ta list is one God; th e God o f th e m od ern ist is anoth er. T he C hrist of th e fu n d am en ta list is one C hrist; the C hrist of the m odern ist is another. The B ib le of the fu n d am en ta list is one B ible; the B ib le of th e m odernist is anoth er. The Church, th e kingdom , th e sa lv a tio n ,1th e co n sum m ation o f a ll th in g s— th ese are one th in g to the fu n d a m en ta lists and an oth er th in g to th e m odern ists. W hich God is th e C hristian God, w h ich C hrist is the C hristian Christ, w h ich B ib le is the C hristian B ible, w h ich Church, w h ich k in g dom, w h ich sa lv a tio n , w h ich con sum m ation o f a ll th in g s are the C hristian church, th e C hristian kingdom , th e C hristian sa lv a tio n , th e C hristian con sum m ation? The fu tu re w ill tell. BUT THAT THE ISSUE IS CLEAR AND THAT THE IN HERENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE TWO WORLDS HAS PASSED THE STAGE OF MUTUAL TOLERANCE IS A FACT CONCERNING WHICH THERE HARDLY SEEMS ROOM FOR ANYONE TO DOUBT.” Such also Is virtually th e statem en t of Prof. Machen, although one could not reasonably expect th a t the term inology of his statem en t would be quite so complimentary to the R ationalists as th a t of th e Christian Century. How ever, we are forced to a recognition of th e fact th a t the issue is drawn and th a t it is not the day for n eu trality or the w riting of notes. To some people notes, like the de liverances of the Assemblies, Form s of Government, Con fessions of F aith , H istoric positions, would be but “scraps of paper.” 1 It is being said, and tru ly said, th a t th is is not th e first controversy through which the Church has passed. From the very beginning there have been issues drawn and wars waged. But here th e re is an essential difference. At all times in the past th e appeal to Scripture was final. Both sides to th e controversy recognized th a t the testimony of the Bible m ust decide. Here the Bible itself is called in question and its final au th o rity flouted. “The Bible of the fundam entalist is one Bible; the Bible of the modernist ano th er” so says th e Christian Century. . There have been g reat controversies in the Presbyterian Church in the years gone by, bu t an appeal to and a decision from the General Assembly was final. But now a t least one hundred and fifty P resbyterian m inisters reject the au tho r ity of the General Assembly and repudiate the constituted au tho rity of our Church courts. It must be adm itted these facts make a trem endous difference in th e consideration of the issue. Here th ere can be no n eu tral ground or room for compromise. F o r all loyal Presbyterians th e Word of God
is final and the decisions of the General Assembly au tho r itative. He who denies the first is not a Christian and he who denies the second certainly is not a GOOD PRESBY TERIAN. F o r constituted au tho rity we stand and by the decisions of th a t au tho rity we will abide. But my particu lar subject is “THE FIVE POINTS” and “THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.” The H istory of th e Overture It may be of value for us to go back briefly over the his tory of the Overture of th e Philadelphia P resbytery by way of refreshing our minds. On the first Monday of October, 1922, the P resbytery met a t the country home of the late John W anam aker. It was a full meeting, very few being absent. Late in th e session, Dr. Macartney read a paper regarding th e preaching in the F irs t Church of New York. This paper was not an over tu re, bu t ra th e r a friendly communication from the Presby tery of Philadelphia to th e Presbytery of New York. The communication drew especial atten tion to a sermon preached in th a t Church entitled, “Shall th e F undam ental ists-W in," and also to a deliverance of th e General Assem bly on th e question of doctrine, definitely mentioning five doctrines which the deliverance declared as essential to th e Word of God; and th e Standards of our Church. The paper was discussed a t considerable length. A mo tion was made to postpone action un til th e next meeting of Presbytery, in the meantime th e clerk was to have the paper, together w ith a copy of the sermon in question, sent to each member of Presbytery. The liberal members of our P resbytery began a most determ ined opposition to this action. It was finally ruled th a t such a paper could not be sent from one P resbytery tt> another, bu t must go to the higher court, and consequently it was presented a t the next meeting in th e form of an overture. At th is meeting the new paper was adopted by a sweeping m ajority, and ordered sent to th e General Assembly. In due course th e Overture, together w ith several others bearing on th is subject, came into the hands of the Bills and Overtures Committee. Of its course from th is tim e on, I can speak w ith considerable certainty for being a member of th a t Committee I was intim ately associated w ith it. It is not necessary to en ter upon any detailed discussion of the proceedings of the Committee. Suffice it to say th a t very early in the meetings it was app aren t th a t the debate on th is question would narrow down to one between th e Ed ito r and the Publisher of th e Continent on one side and myself on the other. And may I add, in passing, th a t it would be g reat ing ratitude should th e distinguished preacher of the F irs t Church ever forget the valiant fight made in his defence, and in defence of his an ti-P resby ter ian preaching, by the able E d ito r of the .Continent. A fter a very long and quite full discussion the Commit tee adopted a report suggested by my E d ito rial friend. My P resbyterian blood revolted a t the idea of comprom ising in such a crisis and I claimed my privilege of bringing in a m inority report. I t did look discouraging w ith a m ajority repo rt signed by twenty-two, and among the twenty-two some of th e finest men of the Church, and I to sponsor a
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker