PRESBYTERY continued would not be long before the Pres bytery would forbid me to continue as pastor of The Church of the Open Door. This is a reversal of policy of the Presbytery of Los Angeles. The founr ders of the Bible Institute of Los An geles and the Church of the Open Door were largely Presbyterian. Mr. Lyman Stewart was a Presbyterian elder. Mr; T. C. Horton was a prom inent Presbyterian layman.-Pr. R. A. Torrey, the first pastor of .the Church of the Open Door, was a member of the Presbyterian Church; likewise, Drs. John McNeil and Lotus T.. Tal bot, also pastors, were Presbyterian ministers. Dr. William -Evans,-fpean of the Bible Institute in the troversy. They are men with whom I was in school. When in Memphis last fall a prominent minister, with whom I went to seminary, came all the way to Memphis to talk with me. He said, “ I understand that the Pres bytery of Los Angeles has handed you an ultimatum.” Since I had it with me I let him read it, and as he ended the reading of it he turned to me and made this statement: “ That’s the reason that I’m fighting union with that Church. It is not primarily because of the liberalism that is in the Church, but I am afraid of the ecclesiastical hierarchy that would take over and force our conservative men out.” Let me quote the following from one of the publications of the Southern Presbyterian Church: “While the Presbyterian Church, U.S. and the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. have essentially the same Con fession of Faith, and while we are confident that many of the ministers of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. are conservative in their theology, none the less, there is evidence too strong to ignore or deny, that among the majority of those who are in high places of leadership and control in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., there is a marked departure from the historic position of the Reformed faith relative to certain cardinal doctrines of the Church.” The Southern Church is afraid of the ecclesiastical machine of the Northern Church! My request for a letter of transfer to the IFCA was categorically turned down. The explanation given by the Clerk of the Presbytery was that the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly said, “ It is not possible to dismiss a Presbyterian minister to the Asso ciation of the Independent Funda mental Churches of America.” When I asked for further explanation the suggestion was made that the Inde pendent Fundamental Churches of America was not recognized at all. It is interesting to note that the Stated Clerk of the General Assem bly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., who is likewise the President of the National Council of Churches, is reported by the press to have said, here in Southern California, “ Chris tians have now reached the place where they can differ deeply without dividing, but rather learn from each other in the process and arrive at a consensus that carries them forward.” This rather vague assembling of words deceives the average layman today and makes him feel that per haps all is well in the denomination. My friend, it is for public consump tion. In contrast to his above statement, and influence. Dr. Warfield, the Hodges, Drs. Robert Dick Wilson, Eerdman, and Mark Matthews, were names that were known all through the Church as giants of the faith. Their orthodoxy was never called in question as to purity and effect. Young men could enter the seminar ies of the Church aflame with a zeal to preafeh the Gospel, and come out grounded in the faith. These young men could secure a call to a church without any strings being attached to the call. Today all of this has been changed —the leadership of the Church is in liberal hands. Names; that are iden tified with liberalism are now prom inent in the Church. Liberals have taken over the boards .and commit tees of the Church at the top level to a great extent. The machinery which was once used to safeguard the doctrinal purity of the Churchiis be ing used by an ecclesiastical hier archy to “ crack the whip” over the heads of conservative men. The ec clesiastical octopus is screening every -man. There is no liberty and freedom in the department of theology. A man Who is i n , disagreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith will be handled in a tolerant fashion. On the other hand, a man who will not bow to the dictates of the machine, relative to Sunday school literature and other programs, will find himself ostracized. He will become a “marked man” who is described as uncoopera tive and even un-Presbyterian. The young man who finishes semi nary and still wants to preach the Gospel will find himself shut out from a call to any church until he promises to . adopt the total program of the machine. An outstanding con servative minister recently told the writer that as a member of a promi nent committee in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., he observes that the young preachers are forced to “ goose- step” (using his expression) accord ing to the dictates of the ecclesiasti cal machine. As a result he said he is in a quandary about where he can recommend young men to attend seminary. May I bring to your attention something else. The Presbyterian Church, U.S. (the Southern Church) has recently defeated the proposition to unite with the Presbyterian Chur c h U.S.A. (the No r t h e r n Church). Their refusal to unite was not primarily on theological grounds. I was educated in the Southern Pres byterian Church and I think I know the temper of that body. Several of the ministers of the Southern Church have kept in constant touch with me during the entire period of this con 48 THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker