Part 1

Part 2

So I haven’t been blogging much since before I moved, but there has been lots going on.  This post might be boring to some but I have to start somewhere so bear with me.

In some ways, it still hasn’t quite sunk in that I am here at Princeton Seminary.  I am mostly settled in, have met quite a few great people, and am 3/4 of the way through my summer language course.  The reality of being a student again is strange and wonderful.  My internal clock still seems to be functioning on the 8-5 mentality though I have taken my fair share of afternoon naps.  While I am taking Biblical (or Koine) Greek, some are taking Hebrew.  There are advantages to be immersed in a language, but there are also disadvantages (as with everything in life).  About half way through, it was much harder to spend time studying after enduring 3 hours of class.  I found myself wanting to take a break from it which often lasted longer than I wanted it to (insert nap here).  I then spent the evenings studying and often woke up at 5 or 6am to finish those last few sentences or study vocab and grammatical structures (aka paradigms) for the daily quizzes.  While the other section of Greek still has one more test to go, my class took the last big exam this morning.  What a relief.  We have a handful of quizzes on a few odds and ends of grammar that are left to be covered and then a bunch of reading and a few translation quizzes, but it is great to have completed a large portion of the course.  I have done pretty well in the class scoring a B+ on the first two of the major exams, a B on the third and fourth exam, and have done well on most of the quizzes.  Yeah…there were a few doozies…but nothing to worry about.  I won’t know what I got on today’s test until Monday but I am VERY okay with that.

The language itself is frustrating.  For me the moments of encouragement came through points of theological significance that the prof pointed out as we read through various chapters of the Greek New Testament translating it as best we could.  Some were able to do this better than others and I must admit, I am one of the others.  While I have been able to do well on the tests, there is quite a bit that hasn’t “clicked” for me yet.  I can tell it is coming gradually so I have tried to give my brain space to process and keep the self-expectations present but yet no overwhelming.  I wanted to do well, but realized that doing well doesn’t necessarily mean doing things perfectly.  I think I am finally at a place where I am more comfortable making mistakes.  In the past, I my expectation of myself would have been to learn everything at the same pace it was presented and just “get it.”  And if I didn’t get it right away, there was a certain sense of failure that I felt even in the midst of success.  It’s hard to enjoy life that way.  The beauty of leaving room for failure and growth is that it makes much more room for people.  And I have met quite a few friends who will undoubtedly remain a part of my life well past seminary.

The cliche “The more I learn, the more I don’t understand.” has once again proved itself to be true.  Each new fact leads to countless questions some with answers and others that will remain mysteries.  When I was in college, I spoke with a good friend of mine from high school who informed me he had turned away from his faith in Christ.  He was taking Koine Greek at the time and declared to me that the New Testament didn’t really say what everyone claimed it did.  I was perplexed and deeply saddened by his decision and his words have been lodged in my head all these years.  I can understand, to a certain extent, why someone might question their faith while studying the Biblical languages as well as theology in general.  Those unanswered questions can become stumbling blocks.  I am thankful to be able to say that for me, they are stepping stones.  It seems to me when I embrace the mystery of God, it is as if a little bit of the fog lifts.  It is as if the mystery provides clarity somehow.

I will end with a thought from chapel a few weeks back.  When God send Moses to speak to the Pharaoh of Egypt on behalf of the Israelites, Moses asked God who he should say sent him when people asked the question.  As it is normally translated, God’s answer is “I am who I am.”  This probably wasn’t the concrete answer Moses was hoping for.  Another proposed interpretation of the Hebrew words that make up this phrase are “I will be who I will be.”  This is most interesting when it is preceded by “I will be with you.”  So God is telling Moses “I will be what I will be” and “I will be with you.”  Could it be that God will be who God will be through Moses?  Could it be that God will be who God will be through me?  Could it be that God will be who God will be through you?  I believe the answer is yes…and that is most humbling of all.

Oh, that God can be who God will be through me.

So in my room at Princeton Seminary I have one window.  It is an old window that is controlled by wieghts attached to ropes.  I think they are the original windows.  There are three names etched into one the panes of glass:

1. D. Turner
2. K. J. Moore
3. C. G. Vardell

I am intrigued about these past inhabitants of my room so I am trying to find out who there are.  I think I might have found a winner with Rev. Dr. Charles Graves Vardell.  Below is an excerpt from ”Scots and Scots’ descendants in America” By Donald John MacDougall.  Pretty neat.

Originally published in 1927.

It has already been pointed out what a very extreme measure was adopted by the last General Assembly with regard to Princeton Theological Seminary.  The Board of Directors, which has hitherto governed the insitution in spiritual matters and has preseved for it its distinctive character, is to be dissolved, and a new board of control is to be formed.  Thus Princeton Theological Seminary, as it has been so long and so honorably known, is to be destroyed, and we are to have at Princeton a new institution of a radically different kind.

What ground is assigned by the Committee in charge for such an extreme measure, for such a policy of “frightfulness,” with respect to an ancient and widely respected institution?

The answer is simple.  It is that there is strife within the institution, and that to settle that strife the institution must be reorganized.

In reply, we say that of course there is strife within the institution, but that the strife can be ended in a very simple way – a way that does not at all involve, as the action of the last Assembly does, the destruction of the Seminary and the founding, instead of it, of a new institution.

What is the cause of the strife at Princeton?  The answer is simple.  The strife is caused by the fact that certain members of a minority in the councils of the Seminary have been unwilling to recognize the rights of the majority.  Such recognition of the rights of the majority is the very foundation of ordered society; without it there can be no peace either in the Church or in the State.  It is that principle which has be violated by some of the minority in Princeton Theological Seminary; and the result is the condition which we all deplore.

Never was a minority more fairly of more courteously treated than the minority in Princeton Seminary.  Its rights were respectedc to the full; indeed, the only question is whether the majority both in the Faculty and in the Board of Directors did not err by an excessive forbearance; possibly if the majority had exercised its power in a more prompt and vigorous way, the present situation might have been avoided.  But that fault, if fault it be, was surely a fault in the right direction; and certainly it did not deserve the savage treatment which has been meted out to it by Dr. Thompson’s report.

At any rate, some members of the minority in Princeton Seminary were unwilling to recognize the rights of the majority; and to such unwillingness is to be traced all of the strife in which the institution has become involved.

The first notable instance of this attitude in the minority was found in President Stevenson’s failure to resign his position when it had become evident that he was hopelessly out of accord both with his Faculty and with his Board of Directors.  Possibly it may be objected that the Board ought formally and publicly to have requested his resignation.  But in countless cases, not only in educational institutions but also in individual congregations and in other bodies, such a measure does not need to be resorted to; an administrative officer, despite full conviction that he is right and the majority wrong, resigns his position in the interest of peace.  Never was a resignation, from such apoint of view, more imperatively demanded than the resignation of President Stevenson.  We hear much about peace at Princeton Seminary; but if it was really, peace, and not something else, that was desired, the resignation of the president was the means by which it was to be secured.

The second notable violation of the peace of the institution was of a more positive and public kind.  It was found in the letter which Dr. Charles R. Erdman published in The Presbyterian Advance for January 22, 1925.  That letter contained an extraordinary personal attack upon certain of Dr. Erdman’s colleagues in the Faculty.  In justification of the attack, no evidence has been produced; and yet no apology for the attack, or repudiation of it, has even been offered.  Naturally such an unprecedented public attack by one professor upon the character of his colleageues was made the basis of widespread newspaper publicity.  The publicity had many ramifications, but the great bulk of it – perhaps all of it – is to be traced ultimately to Dr. Erdman’s attack upon his colleagues in The Presbyterian Advance.  That attack it was that brought the institution into the undignified and misleading publicity which has given rise to such widespread regret.

Since the publication of Dr. Erdman’s letter, the supporters of the minority have done everything in their power to fan the fires of controversy and thus to prevent the institution from being at peace.   An instance of such activity is the newspaper agitation about Dr. Erdman’s alleged ejection from the alleged Faculty position of Adviser to the Student Association.  The students had formed or were forming a “League of Evangelical Students.”  The majority of the Faculty thought it was a splendid expression of  Christian convictions; it warmed out hearts, in these days when the devotion of so many has grown colld, to find these young men giving spontaneous expression to their beleif in the Bible as the Word of God and holding out a helping hand to their fellow students in other institutions who are struggling manfully against the drift of the times.  Dr. Erdman, rightly or wrongly, thought otherwise about the League; yet against the will both of students and of Faculty his supporters desired him to hold a position in which his attitude toward the League might have killed the whole movemnt at its birth.

But that is only one manifestation of the root of the whole trouble.  The real cause of the strife at Princeton is that some members of the minority, despite the most fair and generous treatment by the majority, have been unwilling to recognize the rights that a majority unquestionably has.

For such a situation there are two possible remedies.  In the first place, the majority may be ejected and the minority placed in control.  That is, in essence, the remedy that is involved in Dr. Thompson’s report and that has been approved in principle by the General Assembly of 1927.  Possibly it may bring “peace” at Princeton.  But it will do so at the expense of justice; and the result will be simply to drive men of conservative or evangelical views out of the Presbyterian Church.

The otehr remedy is that the continuity and relative autonomy of the institution should be recognized, and that the authority of the board that has maintained the distinctive position of the Seminary should be continued.  That solution, quite irrespective of the question whether the President’s policy or the policy of the Board is in itself right, is the only solution which is in accordance with justice.  So long as thoroughgoing conservatives are to be tolerated in the Presbyterian Chruch at all, they should be allowed to have at least one institution that clearly and unequivocally represents their view.

A long awaited dream has finally come to fruitiion: I have taken my first seminary class.  Long have I felt the call from God to study for a theological degree at seminary.  It has begun and Lord willing will commence in three and a half years.  Greek, so far, is no where near as difficult as the hard-hitting-drills of Dr. Mohrlang’s Greek New Testament course at Whitworth, but I have a feeling Dr. Parsenios is easing us in as any compassionate professor should do.  Needless to say I am taking Greek again because I was forced to withdraw my first go around for the sake of my other classes and GPA.  I have this monkey on my back that I hope to pry off through weeks of intense study.  I am enjoying Greek and truly desire to read the Scriptures in the original languages.  Hopefully God will give me the diligence and strength to study to the best of my ability so that He might be glorified in the future translational skills that I hope to ascertain.

Princeton itself is a gorgeous quaint town filled with ivy covered walls and brick walkways.  As a family member said the other day while walking around the campus, I won’t say which one, it reminds them of a Hogwarts on flat ground.  Indeed if you have seen any Harry Potter movie, the campus does depict a very stone fortress appeal and has many passageways in which one could get lost if they didn’t have an internal compass to right themselves.  My favorite so far has to be the interior courtyards in the quads and I hope to do many hours of studying on the gargantuan stone benches.  The town is perfectly sized and filled with an assortment of shops and restaurants just waiting for a credit card to parouse.  Kim and I hope to see it all before we leave.  Our apartments are right next to the canal and we are a three minute walk from the gorgeous canalway that goes on for miles. Kim and the family left for New York this morning and I can’t wait till they return!  Here comes more greek!  Wish me luck.

Originally published in 1927.

It was observed at the beginnning of this pamphlet that by action of the General Assembly of 1927 the Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary, to which the conservative policy of the institution has been due, is to be dissolved and control is to be placed in the hands of what is now a minority, so that the policy will be reversed.

In the process by which this result has been attained, the first important step was the coming of Dr. J. Ross Stevenson as president of the Seminary.  Dr. Stevenson was, indeed, received with cordiality by the Faculty, and for some years enjoyed the confidence of the Board of Directors.  But in the course of time it became evident that he was seriously out of sympathy with the traditions of the institution and with the policy advocated both by the Directors and by the Faculty.

Under these circumstances, two courses of action were open to him.  In the first place, he might have resigned his position.  In that case, the distinctiveness of the institution would have been preserved.  Dr. Stevenson would have been perfectly free to pursue his own policy elsewhere; for there are many institutions and agencies which maintain exactly the same complacent view of the present state of religion which we think is so dangerous in a president of Princeton Seminary.  But the distinctivenss of Princeton within the larger communion of the Presbyterian Church would in that case have been preserved.  The thoroughgoing conservatives in the Church would have been allowed to retain at least one institution that represented their view.

This choice was rejected by Dr. Stevenson.  Instead of recognizing the distinctiveness and relative autonomy of the Seminary’s life, instead of abiding by the principle of majority rule within the institution’s Board of Directors, he preferred to appeal from the policy of that Board to the larger tribunal of the General Assembly.  The result of such appeal is the action of last May, by which the Board of Directors is to be abolished, and, instead, there is to be a single board of control which will undoubtedly support Dr. Stevenson’s views.  This action, we think, is extremely unjust; and we are appealing to the Church at large to reverse the decision next year, before the reorganization of the institution is actually put in effect.

Such reversal would not necessarily mean that the General Assemlby is itself opposed to Dr. Stevenson’s policy or in favor of the policy of the Board.  But it would mean simply that the Assembly recognizes the right of various theological seminaries to maintain distinctive views within the larger communion of the Church.  Princeton Seminary is not the only seminary in the Presbyterian Church.  There are other seminaries; and they represent widely different points of view.  Why should the distinctiveness of no other seminary be interfered with except the seminary that most clearly maintains the full truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God?  Why should “Liberal” seminaries be left alone, and only this conservative seminary be destroyed?  The truth is that unless the disruption of the Presbyterian Church is to take place at once, the conservatives in the Church, no matter how extreme their attitude may be thought by others to be, must be allowed to have at least one seminary that clearly and unequivocally represents their view.  If the conservatives are to be retained in the church at all, they must have at least one theological institution, not that others think is sound, but that they think is sound.  Princeton Seminary is such an institution, and the interference with its distinctive character that is contemplated by the action of the last General Assembly would be an act of the greatest injustice.  Against such injustice, we appeal to the sense of fair play among the rank and file of the Presbyterian Church.

Our 2300 mile trek across the country begins this coming Monday at 5am.  At this moment we are relaxing in Seattle and taking the deep breath before the chaos of the rolling wheels on pavement.  My time at Trinity Presbyterian is over and I find myself often  sighing and breathing out in Joy that God gave me the strength to minister to the students.  God has taught me that I am not a youth pastor.  My gifts are much better suited elsewhere.  I simply don’t have the energy for Junior and Senior High students.  So the next phase in my adult education and discernment process begins as we leave Seattle for Boise for Princeton.  We are on the precipice of the great unknown and I pray that God would direct and give us the strength.  May what we are doing be for and because of Him, not myself.  We are taking in the calm and breathing the last air of certainty before the great move…

The following excerpt was originally published in 1927.  This piece should quell any notion of Machen being a Fundamentalist.

We have seen that Princeton Seminary stands in the first place for the complete truthfulness of the Scriptures as the Word of God, and in the second place for the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine that the Scriptures teach.  In the third place, Princeton Seminary holds that both these things – the full truthfulness of Holy Scripture and the system of doctrine that our Standards set forth – need, and are capable of, intellectual defence. 

Hence we cannot agree with those who think that a theological seminary ought to devote less time to the defence of Christianity and more time to the propagation of it.  Certainly it is a grievous sin to propagate what is incapable of defence.  The basic question about any message that may be propagated is the question whether it is true; and that question has been raised with regard to the Christian message in such insistent fashion in the modern world that the challenge must above all things be squarely and honestly met.

In meeting the challenge, we are fully conscious of the magnitude of our task.  We cannot agree at all with those who despise the adversaries in this great debate, who think that the “critics” are to be disposed of with a few general words of adjectival abuse.  For our part, we have profound admiration for the great masters of modern criticism; we are fully conscious of their intellectual greatness; we respect them to the full.  Who would not admire the imposing reconstructions proposed by a Baur or by a Bousset, or the massive learning of a Schürer, or the brilliancy and versatility of a Harnack, or the incisiveness of radicals like Wrede in Germany or our own American Dr. McGiffert?  Certainly we respect such scholars, opponents though they are of all that we hold most dear.  Some of them may have respected us in turn; but whether they respect us or not, we shall continue respecting them.  They are wrong, we think; all their learning is devoted to the impossible task of reconstructing on naturalistic principles what was really an act of God.  But though they are wrong, they are wrong in a grand and imposing way; and they cannot be refuted either by a railing accusation or by a few pious words.

So we try to divest our students of the notion that there is any royal road to sacred learning; we try to divest them of the notion that they can lead the modern Church without a knowledge of the original languages of Scripture and without the other tools of research.  Above all we try to give them a sense of the magnitude of the modern debate.  We try, indeed, to lead them to faith; but we do not try to lead them by encouraging them to ignore the facts.  On the contrary, we believe that Christian faith flourishes not in the darkness but in the light, and that a man’s Christian conviction is only strengthened when he has examined both sides.  We do, indeed, encourage men to come to Princeton Seminary.  For them to do so, we think, is only fair.  Historic Christianity deserves, we maintain, at least a hearing before it is finally given up; it is not fair to hear only what can be said against it without obtaining any orderly acquaintance with what it is; and to learn what is is men should listen not to its opponents but to those who believe it with all their minds and hearts.  So we do invite men to Princeton.  But after they have studied at Princeton, indeed even while they are studying here, the more they acquaint themselves with what opposing teachers say, the better it seems to us to be.  We encourage our graduates, if they can, to listen to the great foreign masters of naturalistic criticism; we desire them to hear all that can be said against the gospel that we believe.

Part VIII.

It is profitless to thresh over the old straw of the Presbyterian controversy. The field is gleaned and the grain garnered. But Princeton Theological Seminary looms so large in Presbyterian history and Dr. Craig came so close to prevailing upon the Presbyterian Church to continue the maintenance of Princeton in its former glory, that considered simply as a feat in journalism the achievement deserves a thorough-going examination.

The Presbyterian now stood practically alone among other papers. In all the prolonged struggle newspapers and magazines in general realized no more than that at Princeton was a flourishing theological school, very famous, very old, very rich and most influential; and that its President was in disagreement with the Board of Directors, with the Faculty and with a large majority of the students. Because of the Seminary’s prominence various accounts of current developments were published, as reporters understood them. But the reason for President J. Ross Stevenson’s campaign against his colleagues never was made quite clear in the newspapers. An ordinary reader had to guess at causes; and one guess was as good as another.

Religious papers were more illuminating. The presented an occasional idea of the issue involved. But the religious press as a whole was so deeply sympathetic with Liberalism, and editors were so enthusiastic in anticipating the overthrow of a stronghold of Calvinistic theology that references to Princeton took on the finality of a sentence upon a convicted prisoner. In The Presbyterian Advance and The Presbyterian Banner the case was settled almost before it began. Princeton’s prestige, and Princeton’s aggressive advocacy and defense of the Reformation Faith had been irritating them for years. If President Stevenson wanted a different Seminary they were glad; if he desired to discipline Professor Robert Dick Wilson and Assistant Professor J. Gresham Machen, they were delighted; if his purpose was to neutralize Princeton for the duration of the Church’s conflict with Liberalism, that suited their plans precisely. They were for anything that was against the time-honored position of Princeton Seminary in the van of contenders for the faith. So they joined the hue and cry for complete reorganization.

Unhappily much of the Presbyterian Church’s opinion of Princeton was formed without the aid of Journalism. Stories which the tellers were careful to keep out of print attacked the reputation of members of the Board of Directors and the Faculty until it appeared that the President of the Seminary had understated his case. These tales had no guarantors; they were a by-product of the intensity of men’s feelings and were repeated with blind and unreasoning prejudice, and as might be expected, they also were repeated with progressive exaggeration. Contradiction did not overtake them. Only the perspective of time would be able to demonstrate their absurdity, and meanwhile they ran their baleful course.

Dr. Craig and Dr. Kennedy addressed themselves to the defense of the Seminary. They could not deal with whispered slander, but they were resolved to meet every responsible statement with full information. If they could publish the facts they thought the Church would not act with the instincts of a mob clamoring for frontier justice. With humility and a sense of their own inadequacy, once more they put on the armor of God and enlisted as Christ’s soldiers in love’s battle for the truth. Both of them knew they would suffer before the battle was done.

The Presbyterian was printed accordingly. And for three years the Church did refuse to re-make Princeton despite the activity of every agency of persuasion and emotion known to church politicians. Princeton was safe in the debates of 1926, 1927 and 1928. Three years of assault, and the institution was standing like an impregnable rock.

Christians who remember only that “Fighting Fundamentalists” (a designation of honor, by the way, as the term was applied) lost Princeton may have forgotten why they lost. Princeton certainly was not lost as long as Dr. Craig was given a reasonable opportunity to print the truth. The old Seminary had more friends in 1928 than in 1926; on the other hand supporters of President Stevenson steadily decreased in number. In 1928 the Reorganization’s Chairman, Dr. W.O. Thompson, was ready to quit, and said so.

It scarcely could have been otherwise. With The Presbyterian to consult, a substantial proportion of Commissioners at each Assembly knew: (1) That President Stevenson’s definite objective was a complacent Seminary conforming to, not opposing the drift of the times, and suggesting some model in his mind which may have been McCormick Seminary in Chicago where he himself had studied and taught. Whatever the model it was very unlike the doctrinally aggressive Princeton of the Alexanders and Hodges and their successors. (2) That the Board of Directors was under fire because the majority of its members were adhering loyally to the Seminary’s purpose and design. (3) That Professor Wilson as Student Advisor occupied a position created by the students themselves, and that they appreciated to the utmost the difference in attitude of Dr. Wilson and President Stevenson toward Princeton’s standards. (4) That Dr. Machen was within his rights in pointing out a breakdown in faith in the pulpits, boards and schools of the Presbyterian Church. (5) That the League of Evangelical Students was obnoxious only to those who disliked its straight-forward evangelical stand. (6) That President Stevenson, Dr. Erdman, Dr. Mudge, Dr. Speer and Dr. Thompson represented a pronounced minority opinion on the Board of Directors, Faculty and Student Body and had a majority opinion in their support only on the Board of Trustees. And (7) that the plan of reorganization, in the judgment of qualified lawyers, was illegal. These were telling facts. And they were prevailing as facts have a way of prevailing ultimately, when press and speech are free.

Success was in sight in 1928, and then came one of the strangest bi-partisan measures ever agreed to on this earth by a body of men who have contended for the truth. In Tulsa, in 1928, the conservative forces who dominated the General Assembly voted to postpone action on Princeton for yet another year. Bad though this was, it was not the worst. Indeed it sounded fair enough, for at the rate at which the friends of Princeton were multiplying, victory was probably more certain a year ahead, and meanwhile steps could be taken to deal with President Stevenson and his revolutionary plans through Princeton’s own authorities. But in addition to the postponing resolution was the fatal provision of another resolution. Presbyterian papers were asked to withhold comment on Princeton during the intervening twelve months.

When the veterans in the long struggle for a great cause fell into the double trap which we must hope was set for their feet unwittingly, their gallant fight was over. They had surrendered. Absolutely to prevent adjustment of the internal differences at Princeton, all President Stevenson and his associates had to do, and did, was to refuse to co-operate. Internal troubles were to be accentuated, piled mountain high, before the year rolled around. The faithful Board of Directors had been chastised with whips; now they were to feel the lash of scorpions. Informing publicity was shut off; nothing could be written about it. The bare disclosure of confusion and deadlock was all that was to be exhibited to the next General Assembly.

Dr. Craig had been prompt to announce that a General Assembly resolution could not bind privately-owned papers and that he considered himself free to print whatever news would promote the welfare of the Church. Shortly before the twelve months had elapsed he did publish several reports. But the pledge of secrecy hung over Princeton like a thick cloud and no publicity was possible in time to do good.

Removal of a Board of Directors apparently unable to direct, was a foregone conclusion at St. Paul in 1929. Platform debate, limited to a few minutes, was perfunctory. Commissioners were impatient. If ever they had known the real meaning of reorganization as it had been explained to other Assemblies, they had forgotten it. They acted as wisely as men could act in the circumstances.

Would the same Commissioners vote today as they voted in 1929? Of course, not. In justice to them we cannot write on the tombstone of the old Princeton, “This institution died because the General Assembly of 1929 condemned her witness to the Westminster Confession of Faith.” To use one of Dr. Machen’s penetrating phrases, Princeton’s death sentence was pronounced by men who were compelled “to think with an empty mind.”

The following excerpt was originally published in 1927.

But what is it that the Bible contains?  That question brings us to our second point.  We have just said that Princeton Seminary stands for the full truthfulness of the Bible.  In the second place, it stands for the Reformed or Calvinistic faith as being the system of doctrine that the Bible contains.

The Bible, let it be noted, contains, on our view (which is also the view expressed in the ordination pledge of ministers and elders in our Church), not merely this doctrine or that, but a system of doctrine.  A system differs from a mere agglomeration in the inter-relation and mutual necessity of its parts.  And so we cannot agree with those who isolate one part of the system from the other parts as being alone necessary as a basis for Christian work.  Very profoundly, for example, do we differ from those who omit the doctrines of grace – the Bible teaching about sin, the Bible answer to the question, “What shall I do to be saved?” – from the things that they regard essential as a basis for co-operation among various ecclesiastical bodies at home or on the mission field. 

As over against such a reduced Christianity, we at Princeton stand for the full, glorious gospel of divine grace that God has given us in His Word and that is summarized in the Confession of Faith of our Church.  We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the Presbyterian Church, they “have not the slightest zeal to have the Presbyterian Church extended through the length and breadth of the world.”  As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian Church, the great Reformed Faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true; and holding it to be true we hold that it is intended for the whole world.

But it would be the greatest mistake to think that the issue with regard to Princeton Seminary stops there; it would be the greatest mistake to suppose that the difference concerns merely the question whether we are to stand for the full heritage of our Reformed Faith or are to content ourselves (in the statement of what is essential) with some lesser creed.  No, the difference cuts even deeper than that.  It concerns not merly the question as to the content of the doctrine that we are to set forth, but rather the attitude that is to be assumed with regard to all doctrine as such.  It concerns not merely the question whether we are to teach this or that, but the question whether what we teach we are to teach with our whole hearts and in clear-cut oppostion to the present drift of the times.

The policy of President Stevenson with regard to Princeton Seminary has sometimes been represented as an “inclusive” policy.  There is certainly an element of truth in such a representation.  Never has Dr. Stevenson given any clear indication, by the policy that he has followed at President of the Seminary, that he recognizes the profound line of cleavage that separates the two opposite tendencies within the Presbyterian church, and the necessity that if Princeton Seminary is to be true to its great heritage and true to the moral obligations involved in the distinctive basis upon which it has alway appealed for support, it must, in this great contention, definitely and unequivocally take sides.  Such recognition, which we seek in vain in President Stevenson, would not necessarily prejudge the question whether both tendencies should be tolerated within the Presbyterian Church; but it would certainly mean at least that Princeton has the right and indeed the very solemn obligation of maintaining a distinctive position within the larger unity of the Church.  It is true, then, that Dr. Stevenson’s policy is in a very important sense an inclusive policy, and that such an inclusive policy is contrary to the obligations which, on account of its entire history, Princeton Seminary has very solemnly assumed.

But although in one sense the policy with which we disgree is an inclusive policy, in another sense it is not inclusive at all.  Formally it is inclusive, but in its deeper meaning and in its practical applications it is very exclusive indeed.  No one who has observed with the slightest care the policy of the President can think that if that policy prevails any man who is consistently conservative or evangelical in the ecclesiastical issue of the day will have the slightest chance of being elected to a chair in Princeton Seminary.  The only men who will be tolerated in the Faculty will be men who hold a complacent view of the state of the Church, who conceal from themselves and from others the real state of religious opinion in the world, and who consent to conform to the opinions of the party dominant for the moment in the councils of the Church.  The Seminary under the new policy will be inclusive of those who obscure the great isssue of the day; but it will be exclusive of those who have determine to warn the Church of her danger and to contend earnestly for the faith.

If that policy becomes dominant in Princeton Seminary, then the Princeton position has very definitely been given up.  And if the change is wrought by ecclesiastical action, then all the high-sounding words which have recently been uttered about peace and tolerance will be mocked.  In that case, there will be liberty in the Presbyterian Church for Modernists, but none for conservatives; and those who hold the conservative view will have to go elsewhere for the maintencace of those convictions that are dearer to them than life itself.

The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet entitled, “The Attack Upon Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play,” published in 1927.

In the first place, we stand for the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God.  It is often said that the Bible is infallible in the inner, religious sphere, but fallible like other books when it comes to deal with external history.  We reject any such distinction.  Our religion is no bottonless mysticism, but it is the Christian religion; and the Christian religion is founded squarely upon events, like the death and resurrection of our Lord, that took place in the external world.  Unless the Bible can give us knowledge of those basic events, it can be no infallible guide for our souls.

Thus we hold that the Bible is not partly true and patly false, but true throughout.  In saying that, we are well aware of the favor that we are sacrificing.  There are many who would be inclined to treat with respect what we say about many things – what we say, for example, even in defence of the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of our Lord – but who regard us as having placed ourselves beyond the pale of serious consideration when we hold that the Bible is true from beginning to end.  It would be convenient, therfore, for us to keep in the background what we believe about this point, and thus to retain a larger measure of favor from the modern Church.  Much could be said, from the point of view of policy, in favor of such an attitude.  But it is an attitude which we can never adopt.  There is to our mind no profession more despicable than the profession of teaching when one thing is said in the classroom and another thing to the Church at large.  And so we say plainly, to the ruin, in many quarters, of our reputation, but with the approval of our consciences, that we hold the Bible to be free from the errors that mar other books, to be the blessed, holy, infallible Word of God.

We do not, indeed, begin with that conviction in our defence of the Christian religion; and so we can find common ground for discussion with many whose view of the Bible is very different from ours.  When, for example, we argue in favor of our belief in a personal God, we do not base our argument at all upon the infallibility of the Bible; what we say in that sphere, therefore, may commend itself to many whose view of the Bible is very unfavorable indeed.  Or when we defend our belief in the resurrection of our Lord, again our argument is independent of the question whether the Bible is infallible or not.  Even prior to any belief in the infallibility of Scripture, a scientific treatment of the sources of information will, we think, lead the historian to hold that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead on the third day.  There are many Christian who can go with us that far, and yet cannot accept our view of the Bible; and we rejoice in the measure of their agreement with us.  Our view of the Bible is not the beginning, we think, but it is rather the end, of any orderly defence of the Christian religion.  First the general truth of the Bible in its great outlines as an historical book, and the supernatural origin of the revelation that it contains, then the full truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God – that is the order of our apologetic.

Nevertheless, although we do not begin with the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture, we do come to it in the end; and when we have come to it, we build upon it our orderly exposition of the Chritian faith.  As apologists, in other words, we end with the infallibility of Scripture, but as systematic theologian we begin with it.  Systematic theology, we think, logically begins at the point where apologetics has left off.  Apologetics establishes the truthfulness of the Bible, and then systematic theology proceeds to set forth the teaching that the Bible contains.

The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet entitled, “The Attack Upon Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play,” published in 1927.

Foreword

The action of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, meeting at San Francisco, in adopting the Report of the Special Committee to visit Princeton Theological Seminary, has raised an issue upon which the entire future character of the institution depends.  In treating of this issue, I shall not deal with the personal attack that has been made upon me.  My real sorrow has been due not to the personal indignity that I have suffered by the actions of the last two General Assemblies, but to the fact that I have been the occasion, though certainly not the underlying cause, of the danger which now besets the Seminary.  That fact gives me, I think, a right to say something in defence of the institution that I so dearly love.  There are others far better qualified than I – both by their own ability and by their official position – to defend the institution, and no doubt they will defend it.  But since my name has been given such a special, though purely accidental, prominence, I think that I may be permitted to say what my attitude is.  In doing so, I am speaknig in my own name alone.  Since many things have been said about my views regarding the situation, some of them true and some of them untrue, I think that I have a right to say plainly, for myself, what those views are.

I.  For What Does Princeton Seminary Stand?

For over one hundred years Princeton Theological Seminary has stood firmly for the full truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and for the vigorous defence and propagation of the Reformed or Calvinistic system of doctrine, which is the system of doctrine that the Bible teaches.  This conservative stand of the institution has been due – certainly since 1870, when the present method of electing the professors was introduced – simply and solely to the conservative majority in the Board of Directors.  But now, by action of the last General Assembly, that Board is to be dissolved and the control of the institution is to be placed in different hands.  What is now a majority in the affairs of the Seminary is to become a minority, and the policy of the institution is to be reversed.

Both parties in the present debate are, indeed, professing adherence to “the historic position” of Princeton Seminary.  Even the Board of Trustees, the Board which, as distinguished from the Board of Directors, has had charge of the material, as distinguished from the spiritual, affairs of the institution, has professed such adherence.  But since one member of the committee which the Trustees have appointed to co-operate in effecting the proposed reorganization, is actually a signer of the “Auburn Affirmation,” it is evident that the term, “historical theological position of Princeton Theological Seminary,” must be used by the Trustees in a sense widely different from ours.  The Auburn Affirmation asserts as plainly as words can express it that even acceptance of the virgin birth and of certain other basic articles of our faith is not necessary for the ministry of the presbyterian church.  Does such an Affirmation represent the Princeton position?  To anyone who knows the history of Princeton Seminary, the answer will not be difficult.

The truth is that despite all differences of opinion it is not impossible, whatever one’s own personal attitude may be, to determine what the Princeton position is.  The question what that position is, is quite distinct from the question whether it is right or wrong.  And with regard to the former question, as distinguished from the latter, there is a certain unanimity of opinion among outside observers whether they are friends or foes.  Princeton Seminary is known for what it really is, not only by those who have hitherto controlled its destinies, but also by a great host of opponents throughout the world. 

What, then, is it for which we at Princeton stand?

Tune in next week for part two.

As I’m entering a new mini-phase of Road Trip #11, it’s a good time to take a breather, update you on my next steps, and point out a few things you might find interesting!

something old: reminders of the recent (and not-so-recent)

Regardless of whether you personally Twitter or not, you can see my little observations by going to this page: http://www.twitter.com/bensonhines. It’s just like a blog, only with posts in 140 characters or less… Plus, I’m now adding some picture links along the way.

If you haven’t already, I encourage you to check out my recent interview with Center for Parent / Youth Understanding. I got the chance to talk about my yearlong road trip, my recent book, and more. Here’s Part One; here is Part Two.

If you want another synopsis of the big trip, you can still listen to the 19-minute podcast I recorded last summer. (Information and the podcast link are posted here.) As I neared the end of that huge trip, it was a neat opportunity to talk off-the-cuff about what I had experienced!

something new: updates about next steps

Despite the fears I twittered earlier this week, I was able to get a spot at Princeton Seminary’s Emerging Adulthood Conference. It lasts from this afternoon through Saturday morning, and I’m actually going to commute from Langhorne, PA, where I’ve been staying already – which is surprisingly only 20ish miles away. So that works out nicely, and I don’t have to repack my Pathfinder just yet.

The conference should be interesting. The discussion of collegiate and young adult development, psychology, and sociology will be helpful. I’m also guessing that the crowd will be largely from mainline Protestantism – although we’ll see how accurate that guess actually is. So that will allow me a window into a stream of collegiate work I don’t usually get to explore.

I’ve also got a couple of interviews with local Princeton college ministers lined up, and I’m hoping to connect with more while I’m over there this week!

and next steps further?

Lastly, I’m approaching a real “hinge” for this trip. After Saturday morning, my calendar is completely unplanned. I probably have at least 2 weeks remaining up here in the Northeast. But my locations and explorations during that time are, at present… undetermined.

If you get the chance, pray for direction and wisdom. God will provide it, and foggy-futures are very common during these trips. So I look forward to seeing – and enjoying – the next steps He plans to reveal.

Written from Langhorne, PA

Road Trip #11 update (Day 16):
yesterday’s T-shirt: the Lobos of University of New Mexico
new campus visit: Philadelphia Biblical University (#17)
(click here to learn more about Road Trip #11)