The four episodes are:

1. The Long Road to Leaving the CRC
2. The Birth of the United Reformed Churches in North America
3. What the URCNA Won’t Compromise: Doctrine, Polity, and the Form of Subscription
4. Is There Room for Growth in the URCNA?

Timeline of the URCNA

• 1952: Almost the entire Calvin Seminary faculty is dismissed over differing approaches to confessional integrity.
• 1961: The CRC issues a study committee report on biblical inspiration after a complaint regarding the Calvin Seminary president’s views on scripture.
• 1967: The CRC convenes a special Synod to adjudicate a controversy over the doctrine of definite atonement.
• Early 1970s: The CRC’s “Report 44” sparks widespread dispute over biblical authority and the historical reality of scripture.
• 1979: A congregation in Listowel, Ontario, becomes one of the first to secede from the CRC.
• 1986: Lynwood CRC sends a letter of concern to all CRC consistories, sparking the formation of the consistorial conferences.
• 1988: The Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC) officially federate after leaving the CRC.
• 1990: A CRC Synod initially permits women in office, and a study committee suggests rereading scripture in light of evolutionary science.
• 1993: The CRC reverses its 1990 decision regarding women in office.
• 1995: The CRC makes its final decision to permit women in office, while the Alliance of Reformed Churches resolves to form a provisional federation.
• 1996: The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) is officially born at its first Synod in Lynwood, Illinois.
• 1999: The URCNA Synod affirms a six-day creation in response to an overture to unite with the OCRC.
• 2001: The URCNA initiates a “joint venture model” for cooperative missions and church planting.
• 2008: Most congregations of the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC) merge into the URCNA.
• 2010: The URCNA Synod approves a study committee report addressing the Federal Vision and justification.
• 2024: The URCNA Synod meets in Escondido, California, to “perfect” its church order.

Rev. Alexander Dunlop (c. 1620–1667)

The earliest Dunlop ancestor in this line is Rev. Alexander Dunlop, a Church of Scotland minister. He was the second son of James Dunlop, Laird of Dunlop, in Ayrshire. Alexander was ordained and served as minister of Paisley Abbey from 1644, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

Alexander sided with the Covenanter party, the Presbyterians who insisted the Church of Scotland be governed by presbyteries and synods rather than by royal bishops. He was imprisoned by the Privy Council at least twice. According to family tradition recorded on the Clan Dunlop website, after the Covenanters’ defeat at the Battle of Rullion Green in November 1666, Alexander died of a broken heart at Bo’ness on 13 March 1667.

He married Elizabeth Mure, a daughter of William Mure of Glanderston. Their eldest son was William.

Principal William Dunlop (c. 1654–1700)

William Dunlop grew up during the “Killing Time,” the worst years of Covenanter persecution. He became a licentiate of the Church of Scotland and served as a courier for the Covenanting resistance at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge in 1679.

In July 1684, William sailed from the Firth of Clyde on the Carolina Merchant with 149 passengers, including thirty-five banished Covenanters, bound for Charles Town, South Carolina. He helped establish Stuart Town, a Scottish Presbyterian settlement near Port Royal. There he served as both the settlement’s Presbyterian minister (the first in South Carolina) and militia major. Stuart Town was destroyed by the Spanish in August 1686.

After the Glorious Revolution, Dunlop returned to Scotland. In December 1690, he was appointed Principal of the University of Glasgow, likely through the influence of his brother-in-law William Carstares, who later became Principal of the University of Edinburgh. Dunlop also served as Historiographer Royal for Scotland from 1693.

He invested in the Darien scheme, Scotland’s failed attempt to colonize Panama. The colony’s collapse may have contributed to his death on 8 March 1700, at around age forty-six.

He had married his cousin Sarah Carstares, and they had at least three sons: Alexander (born 1684 in Carolina), William (born 1692 in Glasgow), and possibly a third son nicknamed “Jocke” in family correspondence.

William’s distinguished sons

William’s two younger sons are not in the direct line to George Dunlap Hopper, but they show how the family’s Presbyterianism extended into academic life.

Alexander Dunlop (1684–1747) was born during his parents’ time in Carolina and returned to Scotland as a child. He became Professor of Greek at the University of Glasgow, a position he held for decades. His most famous student was Adam Smith, who entered Glasgow in 1737 at age fourteen. Alexander published a Greek grammar in 1736 that was widely used in Scottish schools.

William Dunlop the Younger (1692–1720) became Professor of Divinity and Church History at Edinburgh. He died at twenty-eight but published A Collection of Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, Books of Discipline, a compilation of the Westminster Standards and other Reformed confessional documents. In his preface, he celebrated the Church of Scotland’s commitment to “the simplicity and plainness of her worship as her peculiar glory.” He was buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard in the grave of his uncle William Carstares.

John Dunlap (c. 1684–before 1773)

The genealogy here is tangled. John Dunlap’s parentage is uncertain. Some family genealogies list him as a son of Principal William, born around 1684 in Carolina during the Stuart Town period. But Alexander (the future Greek professor) was also born in 1684 in Carolina, and the Wikipedia article on Principal William mentions only Alexander and William the Younger as documented sons, plus a third son nicknamed “Jocke” in family correspondence. “Jocke” may be John — Jock being a common Scots form of the name. Other genealogists, including Hanna’s The House of Dunlap, have suggested John was a son of Alexander the Greek professor rather than of William the Principal. The Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois refers to a “Prof. John Dunlap of the University of Glasgow” who sailed for Virginia around 1730.

John married Nancy Colvin in Scotland in 1724. The family emigrated to America, living first in New York, then in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, before settling in Augusta County, Virginia around the middle of the eighteenth century. They were Presbyterian. John died before November 1773 in Augusta County and may be buried at Old Bethlehem Church in Middlebrook, Virginia.

Major William Dunlap II (1744–1815/16)

John’s son William was born on 10 August 1744 in Augusta County, Virginia. He served as a Major in the American Revolution, remaining in the army until Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781. A family letter from 1806 references the musket William carried “in the war for liberty,” which was reportedly still in the possession of a descendant in Lexington, Kentucky as late as the early twentieth century.

After the war, William migrated to Fayette County, Kentucky, following the same path as many Scots-Irish Presbyterian families from the Shenandoah Valley. He married Rebecca Robertson, who was born in Staunton and was the aunt of Chief Justice George Robertson. William died on 5 March 1815 (or 1816) in Lexington, Kentucky. His will, probated in April 1816, names his wife Rebecca and children including John, Rebecca, Elizabeth, Patsey, William, Alexander, James, and George.

The family was described as “one of the oldest and most distinguished of the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian families of the South.” William’s descendants included Congressman George W. Dunlap, General James Dunlap and General Henry C. Dunlap of the Union Army, and Colonel William Watkins Dunlap, who left West Point to join the Confederacy.

Major William Dunlap III (1779–1844)

William II’s son William III was born on 8 February 1779 in Fayette County. He married Onetta Green in 1801. He settled in Lexington, Kentucky, where he worked as a farmer and butcher and served for one year as mayor. He died on 2 January 1844.

William III and Onetta had at least ten children, including Mary Jane, Alexander Clay, Andrew Jackson, Green, George, James, John, Frank, Minerva, and a son named William.

Mary Jane Dunlap (1814–1906)

Mary Jane Dunlap was born on 11 January 1814 in Lancaster, Garrard County, Kentucky. At age twenty-two, around 1836, she joined the Presbyterian church. Her obituary records that she “throughout her long and useful life remained a devout member.”

On 11 February 1840, in Fayette County, she married Joseph Hopper (1782–1860), who was thirty-two years her senior. Joseph came from a Baptist family; his father Blackgrove Hopper (1759–1831) was a Baptist minister.

Joseph and Mary Jane had at least two children who survived to adulthood: Martha Dunlap Hopper (1842–1925) and George Dunlap Hopper (1848–1913). After Joseph’s death in 1860, Mary Jane married Jonathan Owsley in 1864. She died on 1 April 1906 in Stanford, Kentucky, at age ninety-two.

George Dunlap Hopper (1848–1913)

George Dunlap Hopper was born on 29 October 1848 in Lancaster, Kentucky, when his father Joseph was sixty-six years old. His middle name honored his mother’s family. He moved to Stanford in 1869 and married Katherine E. Higgins on 7 October 1875.

George became a Presbyterian around 1868, at about age twenty, the first Hopper to join the church his mother’s family had belonged to for generations. His obituary records that he “had been a member of the Presbyterian Church nearly 45 years.” He served as both deacon and elder of the Stanford Presbyterian Church. His obituary called him “a thoroughly good man, a scrupulously honest one, and a citizen than whom there was none better.”

George and Katherine’s children continued the Presbyterian tradition: Rev. William Higgins Hopper pastored the Presbyterian church in Burnside; Rev. Joseph Hopper served as a Presbyterian missionary in Korea for thirty-four years; and their other children were all connected to Presbyterian institutions.

The Presbyterian thread

Every generation in this line was Presbyterian. Alexander Dunlop was imprisoned for the Covenant and died after a Covenanter defeat. His son William sailed to Carolina with banished Covenanters to serve as their minister, then came home to lead one of Scotland’s universities. William’s sons defended the Westminster Confession in print and taught Greek at Glasgow.

In Virginia and Kentucky, the family remained part of Scots-Irish Presbyterian communities in the Shenandoah Valley and then in the Bluegrass. Mary Jane Dunlap joined the Presbyterian church at twenty-two, four years before marrying into the Baptist Hopper family. Her son George became a Presbyterian elder. His sons became Presbyterian ministers and missionaries. The Hopper family has been Presbyterian ever since.

Sources

• James Arthur MacClellan Hanna, The House of Dunlap, 1956.
• Joe Hopper manuscript, “Dunlaps of Kentucky.”
• William Dunlop (principal), Wikipedia.
• William Dunlop (ecclesiastical historian), Wikipedia.
• Alexander Dunlop (scholar), Wikipedia.
• Clan Dunlop — Notable Dunlops in Scotland.
• Major William Dunlap (1744–1816), Find a Grave.
• Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois & History of Morgan County, Munsell Publishing Company, 1906.
• Obituary for Mary Jane Owsley, The Interior Journal, Stanford, Kentucky, 3 April 1906.
• Obituary for George Dunlap Hopper, by E. C. Walton, 1913.
• William Dunlop, A Preface to an Edition of the Westminster Confession, 1720.

• 1845: Synod resolves the deacon/trustee controversy: rejects trustees, affirms deacons for both poor relief and temporal management.¹
• c. 1845: James McLeod Willson publishes The Deacon, defending the diaconate as a distinct, divinely instituted office.¹
• 1870s–1880s: RPCNA expands into foreign and domestic missions (Syria, Cyprus, Selma, Indian Territory); women take on substantial operational roles in missionary societies and benevolence work.²³
• 1888: McKeesport, Pennsylvania congregation, “feebly equipped with male members,” elects Martha J. McConnell, known for “efficiency in temperance and evangelistic work,” as deacon. Presbytery refers the question to Synod.⁴⁵
• 1888: North Cedar Ladies’ Missionary Society congratulates McConnell, urging “conscientious acceptance” and asking Synod to “lay no obstacles in her way.”⁶
• 1888: Synod votes 93–24 that ordaining a woman deacon is “in harmony with the New Testament and the Constitution of the Apostolic Church.”⁵
• 1888: Synod committee publishes “Women and the Deacon’s Office,” arguing from Romans 16:1 (Phoebe as diakonos) and 1 Timothy 3:11 (“women likewise”) for women in the diaconate while excluding them from ruling office and church courts.⁷
• 1888: D.B. Willson defends women’s ordination to the diaconate in a seminary lecture, citing demographic need and women’s proven reform work.⁴
• 1888: Thomas P. Stevenson surveys early-church deaconesses, marshaling patristic and conciliar evidence while confining their roles to non-priestly functions.⁸
• 1888: D.S. Faris attacks the decision, alleging Synod acted by “sentimental overflow” and warning of a slippery slope toward women in all offices.⁹
• 1888: Christian Nation editorial places the decision alongside Covenanter reform causes (political dissent, abolition, prohibition) as the next question “pressing for solution.”⁵
• 2002: RPCNA Synod reaffirms women deacons: deacons hold “no legislative or judicial powers”; the diaconate is “neither a ruling nor a teaching office.”¹⁰

Sources

Mason pastored Cedar Street for seventeen years. By 1809, overworked and lacking an assistant, he proposed enlarging the building to increase revenue and hire help. When the trustees refused, Mason resigned in May 1810 and led a portion of the congregation to establish a third ARP church on Murray Street.²

Construction delays forced the Murray Street group to share space with a PCUSA congregation pastored by Dr. John B. Romeyn. Mason’s service followed Romeyn’s, and many Presbyterians stayed to hear the eloquent young minister. The two congregations grew close. When Mason administered the Lord’s Supper, he invited Romeyn’s flock to participate, a departure from ARP practice, which reserved communion for vetted members holding “tokens.” Romeyn reciprocated.

Reports of Mason’s “inter-communion” reached the 1811 General Synod, along with a secondary charge: while preaching for Romeyn, Mason had used Watts’s psalms and hymns, violating the ARP’s exclusive-psalmody rule. Synod appointed a committee to investigate. The committee’s report was measured, acknowledging Mason’s “peculiar circumstances” and noting that “by force of circumstances, the two congregations became acquainted with each other… practically, they were, only for the time being, one congregation.” But it also observed that Mason’s use of uninspired psalmody “created… displeasure.”²

A motion to censure Mason, along with two other ministers (Rev. James M. Matthews and Rev. John N. Clark, whose cases were bundled with his), failed 13-3. A compromise resolution passed instead, calling for “mutual forbearance” and warning against communion practices “contrary to… brotherly love” and “sound… discipline.” No one was satisfied. Mason had defended himself in what contemporaries called “the mighty speech”: a three-hour address. Lathan drily concludes: “No One Satisfied–The Parties Disposed to be Extremists.”²

The Scioto and Carolinas synods, dominated by strict-communion ministers, formally condemned Mason’s actions. The rift deepened. In 1816, Mason published his 181-page A Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholick Principles, arguing that the visible church transcends denominational boundaries and that the Lord’s Supper should express unity, not enforce sectarian purity. The book became a manifesto for “open-table” Presbyterians and a red flag to conservatives.³

Mason continued to press for an ARP-PCUSA merger. By 1822, the General Synod, now dominated by latitudinarians, voted to unite with the Presbyterian Church. The decision was procedurally dubious: only two of five subordinate synods supported it, and the vote (7–5, with 4 abstentions) represented barely half the commissioned delegates. The Scioto and Carolinas synods withdrew, reconstituting themselves as independent bodies. The remaining fragment dissolved into the PCUSA, transferring the ARP’s theological library and funds to Princeton.²

Mason himself had already departed. In 1821, he accepted the presidency of Dickinson College and transferred to the PCUSA.⁴ He died in 1829, still regarded as one of the era’s great preachers but also as the man whose “peculiar circumstances” hastened the ARP’s fracture.

Sources

In the summer of 1911, J. Hershey Longenecker was twenty-two years old and standing at a crossroads. Just one year earlier, he had graduated from the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades near Philadelphia, where he had trained as a carpenter with dreams of becoming a wealthy building contractor. Yet here he was, deep in the mountains of Lee County, Kentucky, living without salary in a rural hotel, building a mission school for people he had never met.

This journal documents a pivotal season in the life of a man who would eventually serve as a Presbyterian missionary in the Belgian Congo for thirty-three years. But in 1911, Africa was not yet on his horizon. He was simply a young tradesman who had answered what he felt was a call from God. This call led him to volunteer with Dr. Edward O. Guerrant’s Soul Winners Society, a home mission project serving isolated communities in Appalachia.

Dr. Guerrant was a dynamic preacher who had left the pastorate of a large city church to establish schools, churches, and medical services throughout the mountain regions of Kentucky. The work required not just preachers and teachers, but practical builders who could erect the schools and chapels these communities desperately needed. When Hershey’s roommate and fellow Williamson graduate, Elmer Kleinginna (a mason), suggested they volunteer for this work, Hershey faced an agonizing decision. As he later wrote, “A great battle raged within my soul. It seemed impossible to give up the desire for financial independence.” But at last, on his knees, he told the Lord he was willing to do whatever was required.

The journal opens with Hershey and Elmer already at work in the Kentucky mountains. Their assignment: to design and construct the Beechwood Seminary at Heidelberg, a mission school serving the children of this remote region. The entries reveal the daily challenges of this work: procuring lumber, managing laborers, navigating mountain politics, keeping financial records, and dealing with delays caused by rain, illness, and the difficulties of working in an isolated area with limited resources.

More than just a construction log, the journal is also the spiritual diary of a young man wrestling with profound questions about his calling, his relationships, and his faith. We see him preaching his first halting sermons in mountain churches, teaching Sunday School at Ida May, conducting prayer meetings, and visiting the sick. We watch him navigate the delicate decision to end his courtship with a young woman named Pearl, believing “the time has come.” We read his careful accounting of every nail purchased and every worker paid, revealing a character of honesty and stewardship.

The experiences documented in this journal would prove foundational for Hershey’s later work in Congo. His skill at designing and building with limited resources, his ability to manage workers and projects, his practice of living simply and trusting God for provision, his determination to learn new languages and preach in them imperfectly but boldly, all of these would serve him well on the mission field.

This journal provides a valuable window into early twentieth-century mountain mission work, the Soul Winners Society, and the lives of the isolated communities of Appalachia. The entries mention numerous individuals–from Judge Gourley to “Uncle Jack” Brandenburg to the children at Highland Orphans’ Home–preserving their stories for posterity.

Reading these entries, we encounter a region in transition. The railroad is coming. Coal mines are opening. Revival meetings draw crowds of over a hundred people. Schools are being built. And young missionaries like Hershey Longenecker are pouring their lives into serving Christ in places where, as he later wrote of Congo, the people “had not even heard the name of Jesus Christ.”

Six years after these journal entries, in 1917, Hershey and his wife, Mignon, would sail for the Belgian Congo. There he would spend three decades building mission stations, operating sawmills, managing industrial schools, translating Scripture, preaching the gospel, and training African church leaders. He would face dangers from tropical diseases, wild animals, and even cannibals. He would see churches planted, lives transformed, and the Kingdom of God advanced in remarkable ways.

But it all began here, in the mountains of Kentucky, with a young carpenter who said yes to God’s call, even when it meant giving up his dreams of wealth. This journal is the record of those formative days of hard work and simple faith, of preaching and building, of doubt and dedication, of a young man becoming the missionary he was called to be.

As you read these pages, you will encounter not the missionary of later years, but Hershey Longenecker as he was in 1911: an earnest young tradesman learning to trust God, one day at a time, in the mountains of eastern Kentucky.

The Journal

August 18, 1911 (Page 1-2)

When 2.35 arrived we had just finished checking our baggage. We took the train for Clay City with Miss Ahlberg. We arrived there after a very warm ride. After a short walk up hill during which a kind young man took our cases on his wagon now we arrived at the Highland Orphan’s Home. Shortly after our arrival we were given a watermelon treat with the children. After supper we took a walk about the grounds with Misses Kennedy and Ahlberg. Then the children were gathered about the parlor, where they sang most beautifully some well known hymns. Then they repeated scripture verses all around with only two exceptions. There are 21 children, 10 boys and 11 girls. I then told them a little story, and after Kleinginna led in prayer they retired. We also retired shortly after.

August 19 (Page 2-3)

In the morning we arose and went to breakfast, after which I led in prayer. Then the Children’s sang splendidly forms in the parlor. After that the visitors told them stories and then we had an informal chat and a royal good time with the children. We then took a train for Monica, and after walking ½ miles we arrived at The Canyon Falls Academy. But we had a train ride through some most beautiful country. Wonderful rocks were to be seen on the tops and sides of the mountains in many places. On our arrival at the Academy we were cordially received by Miss Hancock, who formerly was a missionary to China. After a short visit at the cottage we went to Mr. Matt. Bowman’s for dinner, which they called a “snack”, because it was the leavings from their dinner. Mr. Bowman had shot four squirrels that morning. They were very good. After dinner we took a look at the school building, which is to be duplicated at Heidelberg. In the afternoon we made a visit with Mr. Daniels. We had prayer with him and before leaving; his wife, however, was not there. We then took the train at Monica, where we met Dr Guerrant and Dr. Bachman, of Presbyterian Bible Training School, Nashville, Tennessee. We had quite a pleasant chat on our way to Oakdale. There we left the train, and were met by Prof. Wells and Mr. Morgan with a paddle horse and a “jolt” “wagon”. We rode over part and walked the rest of the way to Highland College, on the Puncheon Camp. Arriving there at dusk, we had supper shortly after. Then we had some entertainment, for a short time in the form of several stories by Dr. Guerrant, Dr. Bachman, and Rev. Megvins. Then we had family prayers conducted by Dr. Bachman. Before the scripture reading Dr. G. asked each one to name his or her favourite hymn and scripture verse. Then after the scripture he mentioned some needs to pray for and then called on several of us to lead in prayer. All retired shortly after!

August 20 (Page 3-4)

We rose early and had breakfast after which we had prayers and some conversation. Then we attended Sunday School where I taught Prof. Wells’ class of young men. Then we had a sermon by Dr. Bachman. Afternoon at 3 oclock Dr. Guerrant, Elmer and I each gave a short address and some hymns were sung. After the service took a walk with Edgar Shirak and a few other boys to the top of the mountain. Then I helped Dr. Bachman to past up his charts. Mr. White, Dr. B. and I then went over to Alex Herald’s for supper. After supper we returned to the College. After a little chat party on the campus we went to Chapel where Dr. B. again preached. After service we had family prayers and retired.

August 21 (Page 4-5)

We arose and had breakfast and after prayers, which I led, I took a stroll down to the river, which made me a little late to chapel. We had a lecture by Dr. Bachman. We then did some writing and then we went to Mr. Breck Herald’s for dinner. We had a splendid dinner. Rev. Reguin, Dr. Bachman, Elmer and I were in the party. Mr. Herald seemed to be very much pleased with Elmer and me and expressed himself to that effect. He said he had two sons whom he had meant for law and medicine, but now he wished them to enter the ministry. Elmer and I visited the school rooms and gave each a short address to several grades assembled in Mrs. Wells’s class room. In the evening Dr. Bachman again lectured. In the afternoon Mrs. Flowers persuaded Prof. Welles to let us cut a few melons.

August 22 (Page 5)

We arose and had breakfast and a walk up the cove with Dr. B. and Rev. Reguin. Then we attended Chapel, where Dr. Bachman again lectured. Then we spent the morning with Dr. B, who gave us a talk on a chart on children which was helpful. We had an early dinner and then we said goodbye and walked over to Oakdale in a very hot sun. Rev. Reguin and Miss Ahlberg left just before for Haddix Fork in Mr. Haddix’s wagon. At Oakdale we took train for “Monica,” and then walked to Canyon Falls. We spent our time there at Uncle Jack Bowman’s house. In the evening we assisted in the prayer service, which a brother from the locality led.

August 23 (Page 5-6)

We made an estimate today on materials for the new schoolhouse at Heidelberg. I preached tonight on Matt. 6:33, to about 58 people. I also tried to have some fun with Eugene Bowman, who refused to make friends with me. He is about three years old!

August 24 (Page 6)

We arose early and left at 5.15 for Monica where we took train and came to Heidelberg. We arrived here about eight o’clock. We stopped at Uncle Jack Brandenberg’s house to make inquiry, and then went to see Miss Belle Breedlove, who has started the work here. We were very favorably impressed with her. She brought us over to Mrs. Eve’s, where she had arranged for us to board. Then we went with her to view the location for the new seminary. We then went downtown where we met Mr. Hall, Mr. Quillen and Mr. Martin Brandenberg. We had met Mr. Simp. Brandenberg on the hill. Work had been started on the road, and was progressing nicely. We had our trunks and my tools sent up in the afternoon. On my arrival I found a letter from Parents.

August 25 (Page 6-7)

This morning we put locks on the school house windows. I did some estimating work for the new building. Then I went to the Forman Earle Lumber Co. to see Mr. Summer regarding our bill of lumber. I had quite a lengthy chat with him regarding past and present conditions. In the afternoon Dr. Guerrant came. We visited the Beech Grove. We roughly laid out the building for Dr. G., Judge Gourley and others. Dr. G. stopped to see Mr. Eve and arrange for our board.

August 26 (Page 7)

Saturday morning I called on Mr. Sunney, spent some time with Dr. Guerrant, and called on Lyons Bros. representative in the afternoon. I took a bath and shaved in the evening.

August 27 (Page 7-8)

We rose at five oclock as usual and had breakfast! We then did some writing and at 7.30 we started for Ida May. We met Mrs. Hall and her son, who is in charge of a coal mine. We then went around with Mr. Hall to advertise Sunday School at 10 oclock. 25 were present at the service which Elmer conducted. We took dinner with Halls. It was very nice indeed. Then we made the return walk in the hot sun. I took a short nap and then we went to S. S. here. I taught the class of young people. Then I tried to prepare for the sermon of the evening. But it was very difficult to prepare. In fact, I could only select a text and ask God for a message. In his mercy he saw fit to give me a message from I Tim. 1:15. There were about 100 people in attendance.

September 2 (Page 8)

During the week we have gotten out stone for foundations, done some excavating, built places to hold timber, made a bench and horses, Cleared up some rubbish, etc. We have also had some timber hauled. This was Pearl’s birthday and I thought of her often, and of her surprise party one year ago. Rev. Creson, of Port Gibson Mississippi came here Wednesday and has been conducting preaching services. He preached Wednesday night on Hebrews 7:25. It helped me very much as it gave me a new understanding of Christ’s intercession for us. Thursday night his text was Romans 10:9. Friday night he preached on Matt. 10:8 and his text Saturday night was Exodus 12:13. The attendance and interest manifested was great. Approximately the attendance was Wed. 75, Thu. 100, Fri. 110, Sat. 125. At the invitation to those who wished to accept Christ on Saturday given by Dr. Guerrant 25 responded. But I know of one who was previously a Christian who misunderstood.

September 3 (Page 8-9)

We arose about 6 oclock this morning and had breakfast about 6.45. We started for Ida May at 8.30, stopping a few minutes for Mr. Hall and arriving at the School house a few minutes after 10 oclock. The attendance was [number not given]. I conducted the service and gave a talk on the Golden Text instead of having a review Session. We announced night services for Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights conducted by Rev. Creson and also one to take the place of the Sunday School at 10 oclock next Sunday. Elmer took dinner with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and I took dinner with Halls. I promised to take dinner with Johnson’s next Sunday. I started to return at 12.45 and arrived there at about 2 oclock. I had the company of Wm. Farmer most of the way home. He has been coming to S.S. the two Sundays at Ida May. Now he leaves for Mt. Sterling, to obtain work. I brought him home and gave him my marked New Testament which Mrs. Cassel gave me at my conversion. Then I took him to S.S. with me. Dr. Guerrant gave a long talk to the children of the Sunday School.

September 5 (Page 9-10)

We rose early and went to M. Brandenberg’s for breakfast. Rev. Creson spent the night there. He spent most of the day with us on the job. It rained a little during the morning, and so heavily just after noon that it drove us from the job. We spent the afternoon at home writing and reading. It cleared off just about supper time and we had a good attendance at the evening service. Twelve made profession of faith in Christ. I think this invitation was better understood. Most of those who came were of the number who had previously responded.

September 6 (Page 10-11)

Took our meals at Brandenbergs again today. Elmer finished the foundation and helped me build a closet, which we did not finish. Rev. Creson spent most of the day with us. Miss Breedlove visited us in the afternoon. I had a letter from Aunt Anna containing my pictures containing the information that Martin had given her four dollars for me. It is so kind of him. We had a good attendance of the evening service. Rev. Creson preached on the text “Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, etc.” He explained the meaning of transgression, sin, iniquity and guile.

I decided to go to Ida May tonight for Rev. Creson’s preaching service. But am staying here for supper owing to the fact that Mr. Rawlings promised to have a big melon for supper. The melon was well worth staying for. After supper I walked to Ida May. I got there as they were eating supper at Hall’s. Rev. Creson seemed glad to see me. We went to the school house, where about thirty gathered to hear Rev. Creson preach on Heb. 7:25. I slept with Mr. Creson in Mr. Hall’s bed. Mr. Hall insisted on sleeping somewhere on the floor.

September 10 (Page 11-12)

This morning we rose at seven and had breakfast at 7:30. We had preaching service instead of church. Rev. Creson preached on the Prodigal Son. I conducted the music. I tried to sing as a solo “The Lord is my Shepherd.” If I had been singing for a reputation I think I would never try again. But that was not my object. So I expect to continue to try. I expected to take dinner with Mrs. Johnson. But she was sick, so I returned with Halls. Miss [name] invited me to take dinner, so I promised to come later (I expect next Sunday) and I accepted Miss Congleton’s invitation for two weeks from today. It rained so much that Creson and I could not start for home until 5.15. He preached at Heidelberg tonight.

September 11 (Page 12)

This morning I rose and wrote some and awaited Elmer’s return from Canyon Falls. He came about 8 oclock. He reported a good attendance and a nice time. A Registered letter and two others awaited him and gave him some business to attend to. I went to the job about ten oclock and worked until eleven excavating a little farther for the building. After dinner Elmer went with me and helped some until train time when he went to Ida May to see a Notary Public. I came for the mail and got a letter from Aunt Anna which was 10 days late because it had first been sent to Healdsburg, Cal. I also received three books by Torrey entitled “Studies in the Life and teachings of our Lord.” Lessons 1-13. I returned to work and Elmer returned in time to help some and talk more. Then we returned to supper after which I read and wrote until bed time.

September 12 (Page 12-13)

I arose at 4.45 oclock this morning. I was not feeling strong owing to the fact of my having diarrhea most of the time since I came to Heidelberg. I could not work but Elmer set a row of piers in the middle of the bldg. Our framing timber has not yet come. I filed a 10 point saw this afternoon.

September 13 (Page 13-14)

[The text indicates this entry discusses someone who is personally acquainted with McNamara, the man who is accused of dynamiting the Los Angeles Times building. He went with us to prayer meeting. Elmer had charge of the service. The lesson was Isaiah 55! About 80 were present.]

September 14 (Page 14)

This morning we went to work. Mr. Eve finished digging and I paid him $1.73. Elmer and I trimmed trees, etc. all day. A man at the store east of Mr. Hall gave me a good new axe handle which I inserted. It was a beautiful day, though somewhat warm. This evening Elmer and I went to Brandenberg’s and helped Miss Breedlove pare apples to put up for the school. We pared for two hours straight. Then we came home to bed.

September 15 (Page 14-15)

This morning I received a letter from Martin and this afternoon one from Aunt Anna. She sent the $4.00 Martin gave me. We did some trimming on the trees today. After much deliberation and earnest prayer I wrote to Pearl asking to drop our friendship. This step meant much to me, but I believe that the time has come.

September 16 (Page 15)

I mailed the letter to Pearl this morning. I received samples of tracts from Los Angeles. Elmer made a short business trip to Ida May and incidentally hurried the shipment of our lumber which has lain there for 3 days. It came down this afternoon and I paid the freight on it amounting to $9.00. We did some more trimming today and expect (D.V.) to get busy framing Monday.

September 17 (Page 15-16)

This morning we rose and I did some letter writing. Last night I wrote to Aunt Anna and this morning to Earle. Just before we wished to start for Ida May Rev. Hieronymus came and wished to take Elmer to Belle Point to preach. I felt we both were needed at Ida May and was not willing to go alone. Elmer suggested that I go to Belle Point. I went, and preached on I Tim. 1:15. I met John Durbin and family and Joseph McGuire and family. I took dinner with the latter, then I walked back and was very tired when I arrived here. Soon I had to go to S.S. here. I had a class of thirty young people. This evening Elmer preached to about 125 people. I retired at 8.30.

September 18 (Page 16)

We rose this morning at 5 oclock and I went on the job at 6 oclock. Elmer helped load the lumber, which Tom Brandenberg’s man hauled. I got about 100 bd. ft. of stuff from Mr. Hall for bridging when he was not looking. He was not at the mill as he had expected to be.

William Fincher started work at 7 A.M. and Elijah Synch at 12 M.

We have in part of the sills and some of the joists and have had some studding cut.

September 19 (Page 16)

This morning I arose at 4.30 and read some before breakfast. I went on the job at 6.00 AM. We finished putting down our sills and our first floor joists except the platform. We also put down the bare for the studding and laid out our ribbon, and bridged all of the joists except one wing. We also started to lay the sub-floor. I got some stuff at Buckless for the ribbon and we carried it up. It rained slightly from 4.30 to 5.

September 20 (Page 16-17)

We put in a very busy day until Dr. Guerrant, Rev. Hudson of Virginia and Dr. Morris, of Atlanta Ga. came to see us, about 2:30. After some conversation Drs. Morris and Guerrant went to Martin Brandenbergs and Elmer took Mr. Hudson up to our place at Treadaways. Miss Breedlove also visited us. Just after they all had left, Miss Bertie Brandenburg and Mr. Newman came to visit us with 55 pupils of the public school. I told them I would like to have their picture, so I sent one of the boys to ask Elmer to bring his camera. After some waiting, he arrived and took the picture. During our period of waiting I asked the school to sing for me. After some little coaxing a number lined up and sang quite well a motion song called “Kentucky Schools.”

At four o’clock we went to see Dr. Guerrant and with him and Dr. Morris we walked over to the proposed site of the Church. Then we returned here for supper. After supper we dressed and I went early to service and Elmer came later with Rev. Hudson. Dr. Guerrant and Dr. Morris made short addresses, while Rev. Hudson preached the sermon of the evening. His text was “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” He closed with the history of Billy Sunday’s conversion. We had an interesting conversation with him after [entry continues on next page].

September 26 (Page 19)

Today I trimmed window & door openings & Elmer & William sheathed the west & South sides of the west wing.

September 28 (Page 19)

Today we had some blocks sheathing hauled on the job by Steele. He also hauled 3200 ft of poplar to Buckle’s Mill at 75¢/M.

A new man came on the job today, Grover Phillips.

September 29 (Page 18)

And started sheathing it. Received a letter from Dr. Guerrant. Elmer wrote to Miss Carper saying that I will preach at Canyon Falls Oct. 15.

This morning we had to stop at 7.30 because of rain. I came home and wrote a long letter to Aunt Anna. We worked this afternoon. The men finished the coal shed, except the door and openings, and ruberoid roofing.

September 30 (Page 18)

We had a most beautiful day. I mailed a letter I wrote last night to an old friend. (M.R.) Elmer and I were working on rafters today. This afternoon we had a long and very direct talk on very vital subjects. I am sure it did us both good. Miss Breedlove told us of receiving $14 from the Male College for a well here.

October 1 (Page 18-19)

It was threatening to rain this morning, but none fell until just before three o’clock, as Elmer and I were on our way to S.S. We had our umbrellas so we did not get very wet. We went to Ida May and held S.S. 25 were present. Elmer taught the older ones and I taught the children. We took dinner with Mr. Knuty, who is blacksmith at Ida May mines. He told us of a woman who instead of apologizing for her dinner told a preacher that if he was a good man it was good enough for him and if not it was too good. She gave us a very cordial invitation to come at any time. He had a son of sixteen killed in the mines a few years ago. We had a nice conversation with him. After S. S. here I spent the evening with Thomas until church. It rained heavily so only about thirty attended the evening service. Elmer preached on “not a patch but a new suit.”

On our way from Ida May we stopped at Falls as usual and had quite a chat with Mr. Hall regarding his taking up the S. S. work.

Today I noticed the first change of color in the leaves on the mountain sides. Even though they may become beautiful in their autumn glory, yet there is something pathetic about this period of the year to me. Truly the melancholy days have come.

October 2 (Page 20-21)

This morning it seemed as if it would rain. We had breakfast just about six o’clock. I went to the P.O. before breakfast. I got three cards for myself and a letter from Elmer. One card from father announced an express box. One came from Bible House of Los Angeles, and another came from Martin.

[October 2-3 entry from page 22]: We raised the rafters over the front section & Completed cutting the rafters.

October 3 (Page 22)

It threatened rain this morning, so we did not start to unload the Car which arrived last night.

October 4 (Page 22)

This morning the men put in the sheathing in the gables. This afternoon we unloaded the car from Combs Lumber Co, Lexington, Ky. Ben Quillen hauled 4 loads & Steele’s man 5 loads.

October 10 (Page 22)

It rained all day and we only went to the P.O.

October 11 (Page 21-22)

We worked on the cornice today & made but slow progress. The attendance was probably about 110. I read and commented on the 107th Psalm. Miss Breedlove visited the job today, as did also Judge Gourley.

October 12 (Page 21)

Today was made memorable to Elmer by the fact that he waited in the cold from five to six oclock AM for Ben Quillen to unload some brick. The team did not arrive at the car as appointed, so he waited in vain. As no one hauled the brick today we had to unload them ourselves, so I pitched out and Elmer caught 2000 brick. I shall not soon forget that 1¾ hours of work.

October 13 (Page 21)

Elmer and I finished shingling the east side of the front section of the main roof. This morning Elmer and I put up some cornice and shingled some.

October 14 (Page 21-22)

We stopped at noon. I got washed and dressed and went to Canyon Falls. Dr. Guerrant was on the train, and so he and I had a splendid talk. We had to wait 1½ hrs. for a train, and so we had a long chat. We talked about many things, including manual training tools for the Highland Orphanage. He wishes me to spend a week with them teaching woodwork. I shall be glad to go, but wish the time were longer.

On the 5:30 train I was introduced to Rev. Hunt, Mrs. Judge Mann, and a Mrs. Green. Dr. G. went on to Highland College. I preached at night at Canyon Falls on “Prayer” using the lesson of the unjust judge. About 30 were present. I walked home with Miss Ethel Daniels, as I had accepted her mother’s invitation to spend the night. I fear I spoiled some other young man’s chance of a pleasant walk?

October 15 (Page 23-24)

I rose and had breakfast at 6.30 after which I had a conversation with Mr. Daniel. Then I studied the S.S. lesson for a little while, started for S.S. and on arriving “Uncle Jack” Bowman asked me to teach the Bible Class. I did. At 10.30 I preached on John 1:29. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” I took dinner with Matt Bowman’s and found that the postcard I sent to little Eugene was effective in winning his friendship. He remembered my name and spoke it quite clearly.

After dinner I called on Miss Carper and we had a long and interesting talk on spiritual things. Then she went away and I had time for preparation for the evening’s sermon. I preached at 7 PM on “Truly this man was the son of God”. I returned to Daniels and spent the night.

October 16 (Page 24)

I rose at 5.10 and had some biscuit and milk and hurried to Monica. Dr. G. was on the train and I rode to Beattyville with him. On the way from there I went over the Blymer Church bell catalogue and testimonials. On arriving here at Heidelberg I came to our room and soon went to call on Miss Breedlove. Then after a very interesting talk I went to the job to see Elmer.

After dinner we went to work (Elmer went to work this morning) and started to prepare for the chimneys. But I made little progress with the wet wood so we shingled the remainder of the afternoon. We nearly finished the south side of the east wing.

Tonight I received a most interesting letter from Aunt Alice in response to my reply to her letter about Miss B. (St Louis).

October 17 (Page 24-25)

Elmer was reading tonight from Dr. Guerrant’s book, the “Soul Winner”, and shared some of his amusement with me. I have been designing a few pieces of furniture for the seminary.

It rained all day so I took occasion to write about 6 letters. The rest was good for me although I did feel as if we could hardly afford to lose the day from our work.

October 18 (Page 25)

We were working on the cornice around the southwest valley today. While we did not accomplish what we wished to, we got along fairly well. Oley Thomas brought us some walnuts which we ate upon the scaffold. Tonight Elmer conducted the prayer service. We were so glad to have two women take part in testimony. About 100 or 110 were present. I found it necessary to chase the pigs from under the building before service. I tried to get out some dogs that disturbed the service, but succeeded with only one. After service I wrote a letter to Aunt Phie.

October 19 (Page 25-26)

Asking for the address of Miss B. This morning we pulled up shingles and were all ready to lay this afternoon.

October 20 (Page 27)

We finished the shingling on the west side of the front end of the bldg. We built a scaffold for drawing up shingles & drew up ten bundles. Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Breedlove called, & we all had quite a chat.

October 21 (Page 27)

Today we completed the cornice & did part of the shingling of the S side of the W wing!!

October 22 (Page 26)

[Attendance record shows] about 30 were there. Elmer and Rev. Moore, Dr. Baker and his wife and son, and I took dinner at Mrs. Lola Falls. It was a large and good dinner. As usual, I hadn’t room for as much as I felt like eating.

After S.S.! we called on Dr. G. and remained with him over supper at Mrs. Martin Brandenberg’s.

Tonight he preached to a crowded schoolhouse. I suppose about 130 people. He asked who were perfectly happy. Elmer and I raised our hands. As I thought of it afterwards that sometimes my happiness is marred by things which should not disturb me. May I always be joyful in the Lord!

October 23 (Page 26)

Today Elmer completed shingling the south side, and commenced work on the cornice of the north side of the west wing.

We rose at 4:35 quite hastily and made good time up to Martin Brandenberg’s, from which place we escorted Dr. Guerrant to the 5:18 train. He forgot his teeth so I ran back after them.

Tonight Elmer called on Miss Breedlove in regard to paint.

October 24 (Page 28)

Today I sent Mr. Miller a check for repairing my watch which I received last night. It seems good to have it again.

We were late to breakfast this morning, rising at 5.48.

Uncle Jack gave me $28.00 in checks today to pay for some nails.

We finished the cornice and started shingling the north side of the west wing.

Miss Breedlove called twice today and I had quite a chat with her.

Oley Thomas brought us each an apple this morning.

I was disappointed not to receive a letter from Aunt Alice today. I asked for Miss B’s address.

Mr. Hall called regarding the paint. I received a letter from Dr. Stearns saying he will send me three copies of Kingdom Tidings. It is so kind of him.

October 25 (Page 28-29)

We put up cornice and shingled today. Tonight I preached in the schoolhouse. About 100 were present. My subject was “Truly this man was the Son of God.” I preached about 20 minutes. A political meeting followed our service. I did not remain. I bought a pair [entry continues next page].

October 27 (Page 29)

Would wish to. And yet we have been working away steadily. And as I feel that we have done rightly about our work I know I should not fret about the rest. So I will give the matter to the Lord, and rest in Him, knowing that He can give peace.

I wrote to Miss H. last night.

October 28 (Page 29)

Today Mr. Cook, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Williams returned to Frankfort. We completed the cornice on the whole building so far as the shingling is concerned. We also started shingling over the rear porch. Tonight we went to hear Rev. Wills, Baptist minister from Beattyville, preach in the schoolhouse. His text was, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me.”

October 29 (Page 29-30)

I went this morning to Crossroads, where I preached for 15 minutes on John 1:29. Mr. Thomas, a preacher of the Christian Church (Campbellite) then preached 35 or 40 minutes on baptism. After service I went to see Bill Holcomb and took dinner. I then came back to Crossroads and taught the S. S. (about 30). I then came home, and when arriving here was so tired that I lay down after drinking [entry continues next page].

October 31 (Page 30)

We had expected to complete the shingling today but as it rained we set window frames instead. We set 23 window frames and three transom door frames. Addison hauled the bell on the job today also one load of sand. It is a “Blymer” Bell, warranted five years against cracking. I wrote to Earle tonight.

November 1 (Page 30)

Today we completed shingling the roof and I am so thankful. It has taken us so much longer than I expected. But it is now done, and is a good roof.

Elmer led the Prayer service tonight. He preached on David.

November 2 (Page 30)

Today we started the belfry. It was very cold and hard to work. I took a number of pictures on my kodak.

Tonight we went to hear Mr. McDaniels of Beattyville speak in the schoolhouse. I had to stand.

November 3 (Page 30-31)

This morning Elmer and I were much surprised to receive each a check from The Board of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States at Atlanta, Georgia. We each received $25. It was marked “salary for October.”

November 7 (Page 32)

I had three open sores on my body which were much inflamed, one on my leg, one on my toe & my hand.

November 17 (Page 31-32)

[Entry discusses death and faith] Death. For I welcome the summons to the presence of the Lord whenever He is ready for me. But I wept over the failure of my life. But I am glad that the Lord does not despise a broken and a contrite heart. He knows it all, and it is well that I should have no right elsewhere in which to glory except that of the son of God.

Tuesday afternoon I went to work trusting in the Lord for strength, and did a good half day’s work. I also worked Wednesday, Thursday and this morning. This afternoon I was on the job but did little more than superintend, as my hand felt sore from over usage, and I was dreadfully fagged out. But Mr. H. and Mr. Will Eve are working on the carpenter work. Wednesday Mr. K was unable to work on account of grippe.

On account of this illness I had to take the Wednesday night meeting. I gave an exposition of Job 10 and Psalm 23. The Lord gave me utterance despite a nearly continuous fire cracker celebrations outside during the sermon. About 100 were present. After the service Mr. Butler asked [entry continues next page].

[Page 33 note]: Rec. letter from Miss Minnie Hanhart, of Valley Forge, PA.

December 1 (Page 33-34)

I have neglected these pages for two weeks. I have been quite busy. Sunday 19 Mr. K preached at Canyon Falls. I went to Ida May, taught my class here and preached here. Wednesday, 22 Mr. K conducted prayer service here. Sunday 26 both of us went to Ida May. I preached. I took dinner with Mrs. Hall. Sunday 19 I took dinner with Mr. Rebel. I found him a man who has clear conceptions of holiness and healing. He is a nephew of Judge Gourley and a cousin of Mrs. Crownlow. He said he knew her from Childhood and if she ever did any thing wrong he didn’t know it.

Nov. 29 I led the service. About 45 were present.

Thanksgiving day Nov. 30 we worked but Mrs. Rawlings gave us a royal dinner. We had turkey and fruit salad, cranberries, pumpkin and mince pie. I ate a hearty dinner.

Jim Eve started work 11/27 and Jim Brandenburg on 11/29.

Tonight I went downtown and bought ½ doz. oranges and cake of sweet chocolate. Mr. Hall refused to take my money however. Mr. Long gave me ¼ lb cheese and some crackers free. So when I returned Mr. K and I had a rare treat. It tasted so good.

I read a booklet “The Convict Daniel Mann” last night. It showed man’s utter sinfulness and unworthiness and that Christ himself is our righteousness.

December 8 (Page 34)

Time is just flying by. Since Monday we have working on the job John Hall, Jim Hall, Jim Brandenburg, Jim Eve, and Will Eve. Work is progressing very nicely. I now see that it is a great advantage to have a nice sized group of men on a job as large as this. The progress is so much more encouraging.

None but the Lord knows the difficulties I have had all through this job in getting my materials, etc. The whole operation has taught me many lessons. It has often been quite painful to me. Supervision just now takes quite a little of my time. It appears to me that others think I am not doing much. And it hurts. But I am learning to act in the way I believe right and not to let such things affect me.

December 18 (Page 35)

Rev. Hudson Came Saturday & was with us til this afternoon. He visited last Tuesday with his wife. I like them both very well.

Mr. Kleinginna & I took supper with Brownlow Hall’s tonight.

Mr. K & I are in the new bldg tonight for the first time.

Financial Records

Beechwood Seminary, Heidelberg, KY - Donations and Materials (Page 36)

Donations of material, hauling and labor received:

Cash received:

Bills Payable as of 6 PM December 20, 1911 (Page 37)

Bills supposed to have been paid by Executive Committee, Atlanta:

Summary:

Beechwood Seminary - Cash Received by J. Hershey Longenecker (Page 38)

Expenditures:

Labor Paid by J. H. L. (Page 38)

Miscellaneous Items Paid by J. H. L. (Page 39)

J. Brandenburg Account (Page 40)

Epilogue Entry

Rousseau, KY - March 29, 1912 (Page 41)

Recently I have read “Power for Witnessing” by Albion F. Ballenger. I derived much benefit from it. I also was helped by reading “Self Life and Christ Life” by Simpson.

Tonight I received from Mrs. Beck a booklet “A Spiritual Awakening” by Finney. It is circulated by Bible Truth Depot, Williamsport, Pa. I have read all of it and I believe it will be a blessing to me.

I have been asking God to send a great revival here and to begin in me. All seems dead here. And I believe God will send it. May He have all the glory of it. I have learned a short while ago that if my work had at once been successful I should have given myself a little credit just in my own heart. Surely the “heart is deceitful”. But I long to be empty so God can use me and I shall not hinder. I have so much to thank Him for.

The collection spans a critical decade in Machen’s life: from his battles at Princeton Seminary against theological liberalism in the early 1920s, through the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and the formation of Westminster Seminary in 1929, to the final years before his suspension from the PCUSA ministry. During these same years when he was fighting modernism in the church, he was equally engaged fighting statism in the public square.

• Urging repeal of New York’s Lusk anti-sedition laws (1923)
• Opposing a federal department of education (1926)—perhaps his most famous letter, arguing such a department would create “a tyranny over the mind”
• Against the proposed child labor amendment (1924), which he saw as dangerous federal intrusion into family life
• Opposing alien enrollment requirements (1925)
• Protesting compulsory fingerprinting and registration schemes (1933)

Joseph’s first wife died in 1838. On February 11, 1840, in Fayette County, Kentucky, Joseph married Mary Jane Dunlap (1814-1906), thirty-two years his junior. She came from a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian family — “one of the oldest and most distinguished of the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian families of the South,” according to one family historian. Her father was Major William Dunlap III (1744-1816) of Lexington, Kentucky, who served as mayor, farmer, and butcher. Mary Jane’s obituary records that she joined the Presbyterian church at age 22 — around 1836, four years before marrying Joseph Hopper — and “throughout her long and useful life remained a devout member.”

The Dunlap family had a long Presbyterian lineage:

• William Dunlop (1654-1703) was a Scottish Covenanter, Principal of the University of Glasgow, and the first Presbyterian pastor in South Carolina
• William Dunlop Jr. (1692-1720) was a professor of church history at the University of Edinburgh and defender of the Westminster Confession of Faith
• Alexander Dunlop (1682-1747) taught Adam Smith Greek at Glasgow University
• Rev. Alexander Dunlap was a Presbyterian minister with sympathies to the Covenanter Party

George Dunlap Hopper

Joseph and Mary Jane’s son George Dunlap Hopper was born on October 29, 1848, in Lancaster, Kentucky. Joseph was 66 years old. George’s middle name came from his mother’s family.

George broke from his father’s Baptist tradition and followed his mother’s presbyterianism.

George married Katherine E. Higgins on October 7, 1875, a “Lifelong Presbyterian.” His obituary from August 1913 records that he “had been a member of the Presbyterian Church nearly 45 years,” dating his membership to around 1868, when he was about twenty. He served as deacon and elder in the Stanford Presbyterian Church.

George’s Children

George and Katherine’s children were all Presbyterian:

• Rev. William Higgins Hopper — pastor of the Presbyterian church in Burnside, Kentucky
• Professor Walter Owsley Hopper — superintendent of the high school at Mt. Sterling
• Margaret Higgins Hopper — teacher at Stanford High School
• George Dunlap Hopper Jr. — honors graduate of Central University, a Presbyterian institution
• Rev. Joseph Hopper (1892-1971) — Presbyterian minister and missionary to Korea for 34 years (1920-1954)

Joseph’s brother Joseph Barron Hopper also became a Presbyterian minister and missionary to Korea.

Joseph’s children—including my grandfather Joe B. Hopper—were all raised Presbyterian. The family remained in Presbyterian churches through the 20th century.

George Dunlap Hopper was the first Presbyterian in the Hopper line. Mary Jane Dunlap’s family heritage became the Hopper heritage as well.

On August 2, 1936, Stanford Presbyterian Church in Stanford, Kentucky celebrated “Hopper Day,” honoring the children of George Dunlap Hopper. The program featured three of his children who had entered ministry:

Rev. W. H. Hopper, D.D. (William Higgins Hopper), pastor at Burnside, Kentucky, delivered the sermon and benediction.

Rev. Joseph Hopper, my great-grandfather and PCUS missionary to Korea, read the Scripture and led in prayer. This was during his family’s furlough year, shortly before they would return to Korea after their trip around the world in 1935.

Miss Margaret Hopper, Joseph’s sister and missionary in Mokpo, Korea, conducted the vespers service with Mrs. W. O. Martin serving as organist.

My grandfather, Joe B. Hopper, who was fifteen at the time, later recalled attending this service and noting that “the three uncles were sitting in the front pew with backs to the congregation, and it was amusing to note that all three were completely (and similarly) bald.”

The day included morning worship, lunch at the church, and evening vespers.

Explore all Hopper family Kentucky locations on our interactive map

Let us pray as we come to consider what God’s Word teaches us about marriage. Let’s pray.

Almighty God, bless us in these next few moments as we come to consider Your Word, for it is You who created marriage. And so we pray that You, by Your Holy Spirit, will nourish our souls as we come to consider what You say about it. Bless us. Open Your Word to us. Enable us to read it, mark it, and digest it for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

Marriage brings a complete reorientation of life and relationships. Each of you begins something new. You leave the old and you become one flesh as a new family today. And that’s something your extended family needs to remember, that you are now a family.

Now, Jesus, through his apostles, has instructed us how the Christian husband and wife are to build their new family. Marriage, after all, is a picture of the gospel and of the new creation. One day, the Lord Jesus will return and make all things known. He will make his reign to be seen. All things will be in submission to Him. But even now, marriage is a picture and a foretaste displaying the beauty of the eternal marriage between Christ and His church.

And so here are three commands, three charges to the two of you to that end.

1. You must love Christ more than you love each other.
2. You must love each other more than you love yourself.
3. You must live and love the gospel of Jesus together.

You Must Love Jesus More Than You Love Each Other

So first, here from John chapter 15, Jesus says, “I am the true vine. Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit. For apart from me, you can do nothing.”

So you must love Jesus more than you love yourself. Now, at first, perhaps that sounds counterintuitive. Aren’t you supposed to love your spouse more than anything? Well, yes, more than any created thing. But many marriages have failed, and even more marriages have encountered trouble because one spouse or the other makes an idol of the other’s spouse. And you know, the trouble with idols is they always disappoint.

Only in Christ, only by finding your chief and highest joy in Jesus, will you be able to find the maximum delight and joy in each other. So, the Lord Jesus Christ must be the source of the love and the delight of everything good in your marriage. Jesus says, “Abide in me.” What does it mean? Abide that conveys permanency, contentment, and residence to remain somewhere. Jesus illustrates what he means when he says abide. He says, as a branch abides in a vine or tree, so you must draw your strength, your power, your vitality, your very life itself from Jesus in this marriage.

Because Jesus says you can bear no fruit unless you abide in him. So if you do not abide in Christ, you will not be able to love each other well enough. You know, it’s not wrong to lust after your wife, after your husband, but you can’t maintain a marriage just based on lust. You’ll get tired of each other, I promise you. If that’s all your marriage is, you will get tired of each other. But if your marriage is built on love that flows from the Lord Jesus Christ, your marriage will endure and last.

So how do you abide in Christ? Well, first of all, Christ abides in you. You throw off everything else, and you cling to the Lord Jesus Christ. You turn from sin and you embrace Jesus as He is offered in the gospel. And He saves you out of His grace, not because you’ve clung to him hard enough or because you’ve done things well enough, but because he is gracious to those who repent.

But you also are not totally passive in abiding in Christ. You look to His Word. You read His Word. You study His Word. You are brought to conviction of sin by reading His Word. You also pray. You implore His favor. You seek His blessing and His sanctifying spirit. Don’t be satisfied in this marriage just with public worship, just with family worship, but don’t neglect private worship yourself. Even as you become one flesh. Because you can’t love Maggie enough, you can’t love Tim enough, if you do not abide in Christ.

You Must Love Each Other More Than You Love Yourself

So you must love Jesus more than you love yourself, but you must also love each other more than you love yourself. Marriage, Christian marriage, is not what American culture conceives of as marriage at all. In this culture, people get married because they find someone who makes them happy, who simply fulfills a need that they have. But Christian marriage is not merely that.

When two Christians come together, it brings a total, profound, fundamental change in every aspect of your lifestyle. Tim, you have been single for a very long time. Maggie, not so long. Now, as a single person, you are accustomed to getting what you want, your own way, but now you must think of and live for, first, before yourself, another mere, flawed, human, mortal sinner.

You must have the other person in your mind before yourself. Even up till now, you’ve had breaks from each other. You’ve been able to function independently. But that independence ends today. And yet today begins a day of freedom to live for each other. And so that living for each other can generally be called love.

But while it’s generally called love, the love of a married couple, of husband and wife for each other, has specific applications for each of you. The Bible tells us that Jesus, in His Word, describes for us what the love of a husband and a wife for each other is to look like. Husbands and wives are different. Husbands and wives have different roles in a marriage.

Maggie, for you, this takes the form of submission, of obedience to your husband. Tim, that love for Maggie takes the form of limitless, prodigal, self-sacrificing love for her. Maggie, Paul writes this in Ephesians 5:

Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands and wives in a Christian marriage express the different aspects of the relationship between Christ and His church, His people, His bride. In your marriage, Maggie, you have the privilege of illustrating for your friends, for your family, for your neighbors, the beautiful way in which the believer responds to the love of the Lord Jesus Christ with deep, joyful submission. The wife’s role is one of submission, because the husband is called by God to be the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church.

God made marriage this way. It’s not because of any inherent inferiority that the wife submits to her husband, but rather that’s the way God designed marriage to work. And remember, there’s nothing ignoble about submission, because after all, it was the submission of the Lord Jesus Christ to the will of the Father that purchased your salvation and mine. So the way in which you submit to Tim, Maggie, Paul describes as like the way the church submits to Jesus in everything. For your good, because he loves you and you love him and he seeks your good. Paul is calling, Jesus is commanding here in marriage, glad, wholehearted submission by the wife to her husband. As for the question every bride must answer, Do I want this man for my husband? Will it be a long-term blessing for the kingdom of God for me to submit to him?

Tim, Paul writes this for you. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word so that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish.”

Maggie’s role in this marriage is one of loving, wholehearted submission to you as the church to Christ. But Tim, your role in this marriage is much more difficult, much more demanding. Paul says, “Husbands, love your wives.” And if he had just stopped there, it’d be easy. As long as you remembered her birthday and got her flowers on her anniversary and chocolate and all those things, you’d be a good Christian husband. But Paul kept writing. The Spirit of Christ kept speaking. Paul describes, Tim, how you are to love Maggie. You are to love your wife as much as and in the same way as Jesus loves the church.

Sinclair Ferguson says, “The model and measure of the husband’s love is Jesus Christ.” So you see, you can’t begin to love Maggie rightly if you don’t abide in Christ as a branch to a vine. Tim, as a husband, you must commit yourself to blessing Maggie. The love that you show to Maggie must be sacrificial. It doesn’t shrink back from pain and discomfort or even dying for her. The love that Jesus showed for the church is that he put the needs of the church, his bride, above his own needs, even while his people were not submitting to him.

Tim, that is the caliber, the quality, the kind of love that you must have for Maggie. Not just have for her, but lavish upon her. Because that is the kind of love that Jesus has shown to you. Did you ever think the Lord Jesus would provide you with a wife who loves you so deeply? Look at how the Lord Jesus has provided for you your salvation, your joy, your comfort, because He loves you. Well, you were called to love your wife in that way.

You Must Live and Love the Gospel of Jesus Christ Together

So you must love each other more than you love yourself. You must love Jesus more than you love each other. You must live and love the gospel of Jesus Christ together. A Christian marriage is not easy. Paul spends a lot of time describing marriage in Ephesians 5 because marriage has been under attack since the very beginning. You remember in the Garden of Eden, think back to Genesis 2. Adam meets his wife for the first time, and what does he say? He says, “You are bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” He says, “You complete me.” You’re fit perfectly for me. Do you think later that day in Genesis 3, what does Adam say about his wife then? “The woman whom you gave me.” Total difference.

Marriage is under attack. It’s not easy. Maggie, when you do not submit to your husband as the church submits to Christ, you’re sinning. But, you know, Tim is not Jesus. Tim is not always going to be loving you and serving you and seeing first to your needs. Look at Tim. He’s a big sinner.

Just think, Tim, when you are not loving your wife as Christ loves the church, you are sinning. Tim, you will go to bed every night having failed. You will go to bed every night as a sinner, having sinfully and selfishly not loved your wife as much as she ought to be loved. Tim and Maggie, you can never live up to the command and the design of God for your marriage.

And how you respond to your failures, your sin, gives you the opportunity to display the beauty of the gospel for each other and to each other. Tim, Maggie, every day, your marriage will show you just how much you need Jesus, just how beautiful the gospel is. Maggie, sometimes you are going to struggle to submit to Tim as you should. Tim, all the time, you are going to fall short of the love that you owe to your wife.

But when you realize that and when you come to terms with that in Christ, when you repent to each other, when you forgive each other, and when you seek the mercy of Christ because you failed Him, you will see the beauty of the Savior all the more, because neither of you are perfect, but Jesus still loves you.

And your children, your neighbors, will see what happens when two sinners forgive each other, because they know that the love that is most important to them, the love of Jesus, doesn’t come because they’ve been good enough, or done enough, but comes in spite of what they deserve and because of God’s grace to all who repent.

And if that is fueling your marriage, your marriage will be a light to the world. Your marriage is a witness to the grace of Christ on which it is based. When you, Tim, love your wife on the model of Christ’s love for the church, and when you, Maggie, love and submit to your husband in the joy and the heart that expresses the Christian submission to Christ. One author says that this light shines, fills the home, and spills out into the neighborhood. Your children will see that love. Your family will see that love. Your neighbors will see it. And at the very least, the love that you have for each other will strike them as odd. But by God’s grace, it will dumbfound them. And it will lead them to ask you, “What is the reason for the hope and the love and the joy that is within you?” And they will take hold of you and say, “Let me go with you, for it is clear that God is with you.” And you will lead them to your Savior, who loved you and gave himself for you.

When I read this, I was reminded of several episodes of the Reformed Forum/Christ the Center podcast about other church leaders who used the media of their day to distribute their message. Martin Luther, Abraham Kuyper, and J. Gresham Machen each used emerging technologies to disseminate their ideas and the good news of Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther: Mastering the Printing Press

Speaking on Christ the Center episode 94, Carl Trueman demonstrates that Martin Luther’s savvy use of the printing press and other media forms was crucial to spreading reformation ideas.

Dr. Trueman notes that the printing press, invented in 1440, was “a necessary precondition for the reformation” starting in 1517. It allowed for the mass production and dissemination of information across large territories in a relatively stable form. Luther seized upon this technology to spread his ideas widely.

But Luther’s media strategy went beyond using the printing press. He wrote in vernacular German, making his ideas accessible to the ordinary people. He used pamphlets and visual media like woodcuts to reach a largely illiterate population. Perhaps most ingeniously, Luther subverted his opponents’ media. When a Catholic cardinal wrote a book against him, Luther republished it with his own reply, effectively using his opponent’s medium to spread his message.

Abraham Kuyper: Harnessing Newspapers

Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian and statesman, recognized the potential of mass circulation newspapers in the late 19th century. In a discussion on the Christ the Center episode 305, Dr. James Bratt, author of “Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat,” highlights Kuyper’s foresight: “Kuyper saw that a mass-circulation newspaper, something that could go to the popular level was possible for the first time. So he saw the emerging technology of his day, and he was right on it.”

Kuyper’s newspaper became a cornerstone of his strategy to educate and mobilize the Dutch public. The podcast notes that Kuyper’s publication was “the first mass circulation newspaper in the Netherlands.” This platform allowed him to prepare his readership for political engagement and disseminate his views on church, state, and society.

What’s particularly striking about Kuyper’s media savvy is how he integrated it into his broader vision of cultural engagement. Dr. Bratt emphasizes that Kuyper was “ahead of the curve all the time on seeing the changes in society and what a faithful Christian witness would involve in those changes.” For Kuyper, the newspaper was not just a means of communication but a vital instrument in his project of cultural formation.

J. Gresham Machen: Embracing Radio

J. Gresham Machen continued this tradition of leveraging modern media in the early 20th century. According to Dr. Darryl Hart, speaking on the Christ the Center episode 493, Machen embraced radio as a new medium to spread his message despite his natural inclination towards print culture.

Hart notes that Machen gave as many as 60 radio addresses, which were later compiled into books such as “The Person of Jesus,” “The Christian View of Man,” and “The Christian Faith in the Modern World.” The broadcasts served not only to disseminate Machen’s theological teachings but also to promote the seminary.

Interestingly, Hart points out that Machen’s adoption of radio technology wasn’t without internal conflict. Machen had previously written negatively about the “racket of radios” in hotels when trying to write. Yet, he was willing to adapt to this new medium to reach a broader audience.

Machen also remained heavily involved with print media, helping to start and contribute to various magazines for conservative Presbyterians. This multi-faceted approach to media engagement demonstrates Machen’s understanding of the changing communication landscape of his time and how the adoption of technology could serve the spread of the gospel and the good of the church.

Conclusion

I am thankful to see R.C. Sproul’s Ligionier Ministries continue their effortless dissemination of faithful Christian theology and the gospel message even after Sproul’s death. Sproul (not to mention the Reformed Forum organization) continues in the footsteps of great men who recognized that the media technologies of their day could meet the people where they are, much like Paul in the Areopagus.

I am reminded of John Piper’s 2009 essay Why and How I am Tweeting, written in a time when Twitter was limited to 140 characters and considered a trivial medium. He concludes that despite the dangers of technological mediums, “…it seems to us that aggressive efforts to saturate a media with the supremacy of God, the truth of Scripture, the glory of Christ, the joy of the gospel, the insanity of sin, and the radical nature of Christian living is a good choice for some Christians.” I’m thankful for those who have done this.

Father

My father, David Hopper, is a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). He was previously a ruling elder in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

Grandfather

My grandfather Joe Barron Hopper (1921–1992) was ordained by the Montgomery Presbytery of the PCUS in 1945. He served as a PCUS (and later PCUSA) missionary to Korea for 38 years.

Great Grandfathers

Joseph Hopper (1892–1971), father of Joe Barron, was ordained by the West Lexington Presbytery (PCUS) in 1917. He served as a missionary to Korea.

Hershey Longenecker (1889-1978) was ordained by the Presbytery of Transylvania (PCUS) in 1916. Hershey was a first-generation Presbyterian (coming from an anabaptist family), as was his wife (coming from a Methodist family). He served as a missionary in the Congo.

Great Great Grandfathers

George Dunlap Hopper (1848–1913), a farmer and businessman, served as a deacon for 11 years and then a ruling elder at Stanford Presbyterian (PCUS) in Kentucky, where he was a member for 45 years. George may have been the first Presbyterian Hopper; his grandfather, Blackgrove Hopper (1759–1831), was a Baptist minister.

Archibald Alexander Barron (1851–1909) was the father of Annis Barron Hopper, wife of Joseph Hopper. He served as an elder at Tirzah and First Associate Reformed Presbyterian in Rock Hill, SC. He was a farmer and owner of Rock Hill Hardware.

The Barron line almost certainly includes more elders and deacons, though I do not have records. According to family legend, the Barrons have been Presbyterian since the beginning in 1560.

In Korea, Christmas celebrations are held in various places. In the Christian schools, the student bodies usually present some drama in addition to the more formal service. In the churches, the Sunday schools and young people’s organizations often have their programs earlier, since Christmas Day is occupied by the whole church organization with its special services.

The early-morning caroling is a very happy and impressive part of the program on Christmas Day. On Christmas Eve, Sunday school children, young people, and some of the church officers gather together in the church and pass the night sleeplessly, dividing into groups. At two o’clock the next morning, they start toward the different sections of the parish, singing hymns in front of every parishioner’s house. Inside the door, the family members wake up and come out to express their thanks. Some families invite them into the house and entertain them with simple provisions. By the time all have been thus favored, the beautiful day is dawning.

The Christmas service of the whole congregation is usually held at half past ten or eleven o’clock in the morning. The church auditorium and the gates are beautifully decorated. In the program of the service, many special features are introduced, such as singing by the church choir and Sunday school children, addresses by the children and by a special speaker. The offering is generally one of money, though many people bring packages of rice and clothes to be given to the poor.

To give us a realistic glimpse, through the description and the implications, we shall let Joseph B. Hopper, a missionary in Chunju, Korea, tell us about “Christmas for 822 Korean Orphans in 1955.”

A thousand little hearts to fill with Christmas joy! A thousand little tummies to fill with hot, steaming rice, beef stew, and kimchi (most famous of Korean appetizers)! This was the reason for the Christmas party for children at four Chunju orphanages and one refugee camp in the vicinity. A dozen or more volunteer workers, inspired and led by Mrs. W. A. Linton, joined a group of teachers from our Girls’ School in preparing the celebration.

Weeks in advance, great jars of kimchi were prepared, a cow was butchered, and five hundred pounds of rice were cooked. Forty students from the mission Bible schools, who serve as Sunday school teachers in these orphanages, worked out an elaborate program for the morning. Lighted Christmas trees decorated the boys’ gymnasium, and two large classrooms were converted into dining rooms complete with small tables and benches.

The day dawned crisp and cold, but this meant nothing to the truckloads of children who drove into town singing gaily. In six-ton trucks furnished by the Korean Civil Assistance Command, they arrived at the gymnasium and streamed inside to sit in rows on the floor. Most wore clothes made by a group of widows whose husbands had been killed by the communists. These women, working with materials supplied by the Korean Civil Assistance Command, have produced literally thousands of garments for the orphanages of the province.

For two hours, the children entertained themselves. Music, recitations, and pageants were produced by children from the Sunday schools of these institutions. The most elaborate pageant presented the whole Christmas story, acted by the big boys of one orphanage. These children, who rarely see things of beauty or enjoy entertainment of any kind, stared starry-eyed at the Christmas tree lights, the stage decorations, and the costumed characters.

But the highlight of the occasion was the feast. A few little spoons found their way to hungry mouths before the blessing was said, but when that was over, it was a sight to behold.

Most of these children get enough to eat regularly, but it is usually a rather monotonous grain mush. Here was steaming white rice, and what more can a Korean want? Grubby hands lifted great chunks of kimchi and literally dropped them into wide-open mouths. When chopsticks and spoons failed to work fast enough, bowls of beef stew were raised to the lips.

Again and again, attendants filled the bowls until no one could eat a bite more.

As the children filed out, they were handed bags of fruit and candy. In addition, each received an especially marked pencil and notebook given by the students of the Boys’ and Girls’ Schools as their Christmas offering.

By actual count, 822 children were fed that day, and the remaining food was taken to the orphanages for those too small to come to the party.

As the trucks moved off loaded with singing children, we could thank God for the opportunity of bringing this Christmas joy to so many who have tasted such bitterness, and of telling them the story of Him who came to seek and to save that which was lost.

Those at home can rejoice that they had a part in this joy through their contributions to the relief budget of the Department of Overseas Relief, which made this happy occasion possible.

All glory be to God on high,
And to the earth be peace:
Good will henceforth, from heaven to men,
Begin and never cease!
– Nahum Tate

In April 1972, my dad, a senior at King College, spent a weekend in Montreat, North Carolina. After worshipping at Montreat Presbyterian, Mrs. Ruth Bell Graham–who was a member at MPC–invited dad to Billy and Ruth’s house on Mississippi Road for lunch. In a letter to his parents (who were serving as missionaries in Korea), dad recounts watching the Apollo 16 launch with the Graham’s after lunch:

“Mrs Graham invited (my 2 friends) and me up for lunch. It was the first time I had been up (to the Graham house), and it was quite interesting. Dr. Graham was there and we watched the space shot go off during lunch.

He said that NBC has asked him to narrate the shot with John Chancellor but he had turned them down. It was very interesting talking to him. He really does know the Bible inside out. I got away a little later than planned….

You can listen to the four parts of the interview below.

You can also search for “Ulster Worldly” in your podcast app of choice or subscribe to the feed directly.

Here are links to some things mentioned in the interview:

• Memories of Congo - Memoir of Hershey Longenecker
• Mission to Korea - Memoir of Joe B. Hopper
• Jeonju, Korea
• Joseph Hopper bio
• Joe B. Hopper bio
• Korea Christian Academy
• Ministry to Korean Lepers
• Home of Peace
• Pueblo Incident
• Mission Haven

Here was the overview we wrote for the course:

This class provides an understanding of the historical foundations of modern presbyterianism in America. We cover the breadth of the streams contributing to the presbyterian churches and denominations of our country. In the course, we learn about the controversies and conflicts and also spread of the gospel and the propagation churches throughout the United States. We specially emphasize the origin and development of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the establishment of presbyterianism in central North Carolina.

Here are the lessons I taught:

1. Brief History of the ARP and RPCNA (September 25, 2022)
2. North-South Polarization: The Presbyterian Church and the Road to Civil War (October 2, 2022)
3. Presbyterianism in Colonial North Carolina (October 4, 2022)
4. Civil War and Gilded Age (October 10, 2022)
5. The Debate Over Confessional Revision (October 16, 2022)
6. J. Gresham Machen and the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy (October 23, 2022)
7. The Formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (October 30, 2022)
8. The Early Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (November 6, 2022)

Here is the audio of the class:

You can also listen on SermonAudio.com.

Ruth and I wish to take this means of publicly extending our heartfelt love and deepest sympathy to Dot and to each member of Joe’s family.

He was a godly and effective missionary of Jesus Christ. We believe that he is now with his Lord Jesus in heaven. And while we shall miss him, we rejoice in the victory Christ has gained for him.

When we first began to explore the amazing possibility of going into North Korea with the Christian message, we turned to Joe for advice. He gave us much wise and invaluable counsel in making this mission possible. The council he gave us was followed by his earnest prayers and his joyful enthusiasm, right up to the last moments of his life.

We believe the words of Jesus, “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of the Lord.” And we believe these words are truly appropriate for Joe at this hour.

We continue to pray for his remarkable missionary family. And the continued expansion of their Christian heritage and ministry.

Devotedly,

Love in Christ,

Billy and Ruth Graham

April 29, 1992

Audio file for Joe B. Hopper Memorial Service

Today, we’ll examine the church’s first tumultuous decade—a period that would define the OPC’s identity through significant internal conflict and establish the theological foundations that continue to characterize the denomination today.

To understand these early struggles, we need to remember the key milestones leading to the OPC’s formation: Westminster Seminary’s founding in 1929, the creation of the Independent Board of Foreign Missions around 1931-33, and finally, the establishment of the OPC itself when J. Gresham Machen and others were suspended from the PCUSA ministry.

A Small Beginning in a Vast Landscape

The newly formed OPC was remarkably small. At the first General Assembly, only 34 ministers were present. Within a few years, total membership reached just 5,000 people—a tiny fraction compared to the PCUSA’s nearly two million members. Many prominent conservatives, including Clarence McCartney and Donald Barnhouse of Philadelphia’s Tenth Presbyterian Church, chose to remain within the PCUSA rather than join the new denomination.

Geographically, the OPC emerged entirely from the Northern Presbyterian Church, meaning there were no OP churches in the South initially. The southernmost congregation was in Sandy Springs, Maryland, with another technically in Kentucky but really serving Cincinnati. The first truly southern church wouldn’t appear until Fort Lauderdale, Florida in 1943—founded, perhaps unsurprisingly, by a group of transplanted northerners.

Defining Presbyterian Identity: The Central Tension

Perhaps the most significant challenge facing the early OPC was a fundamental question of identity. As I mentioned to Matthew recently, maybe the definition of Presbyterian is simply “people who are willing to debate the definition of Presbyterian.” This tension has appeared throughout Presbyterian history—from the Old Side-New Side controversy of the 1700s through the Old School-New School debates of the 1800s.

The OPC would ultimately choose to be an “ordinary means of grace, confessional Presbyterian church” that functions, worships, and operates in distinctly Presbyterian and Reformed ways. This decision separated them from other evangelical Christians, contributing to their continued small size but establishing their theological integrity.

The Fundamentalist Challenge

A major source of early conflict came from the fundamentalist and dispensational movements that had influenced many conservatives who joined the OPC. While Machen had declared in the 1920s that he was “not a fundamentalist, but a Calvinist”—meaning a confessional Presbyterian—many OPC members identified strongly with fundamentalism, particularly premillennialism and dispensationalism.

As Darrell Hart and John Muether observe, fundamentalism involved more than just opposition to liberalism. It included “dispensational theology, revivalistic techniques of soul winning, prohibitions against worldly entertainments and a low view of the institutional church.” In many ways, this fundamentalist approach paralleled the New School movement we’ve studied from the 1830s—both claiming to be confessionally Presbyterian while emphasizing broader evangelical concerns over distinctly Presbyterian practices.

The Alcohol Controversy and Foreign Faculty

Two prominent fundamentalists, J. Oliver Buswell (president of Wheaton College) and Carl McIntyre, led opposition to what they saw as theological drift. They were particularly displeased with the Westminster Seminary faculty’s refusal to condemn alcohol use entirely. The divide often fell between the Westminster Seminary faculty and everyone else.

The fundamentalists’ concern extended to the faculty’s foreign composition. Four Westminster professors were not of American descent: Scotsman John Murray and Dutchmen Cornelius Van Til, Ned Stonehouse, and R.B. Kuyper. The fundamentalists argued these “foreigners” didn’t understand how Americans practiced Presbyterianism.

In 1936, correspondence between Buswell and Machen revealed deeper theological differences. Machen expressed serious concerns about the Scofield Reference Bible, writing that dispensationalism’s “root error” was its “utter failure to recognize and make central the fact of the fall of man.” He argued that Scofield’s view of Mosaic law stemmed from “a wrong view of sin, a wrong view which is against the very heart and core of the Reformed faith.”

Escalating Conflicts at the Second General Assembly

At the Second General Assembly in 1936, tensions reached a breaking point. The presbyteries of California and New Jersey sent overtures requesting explicit statements guaranteeing “eschatological liberty”—protection for premillennial views within the church. The New Jersey overture asked for “absolute liberty and no discrimination between men and local churches because of the particular views which they may hold concerning the personal return of our Lord, whether this be premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial.”

In an attempt to maintain peace, Machen nominated J. Oliver Buswell as moderator despite their theological differences. However, the Assembly ultimately rejected these overtures, arguing that the Westminster Standards were sufficient since they don’t clearly rule out premillennialism.

The Assembly also debated whether to receive the 1903 amendments to the Westminster Confession, which the PCUSA had added. While most OPC members opposed these chapters as Arminian, Carl McIntyre supported them for strategic reasons—his church was fighting a legal battle over their building and hoped that maintaining confessional continuity would strengthen their claim as the PCUSA’s rightful heir.

Machen’s Removal and Final Journey

The Westminster Seminary faction’s victory created further tension. Immediately after the Assembly, the Independent Board of Foreign Missions voted Machen out as president—a devastating blow to the man who had helped found and lead it for five years. Machen told his sister-in-law that night: “They kicked me out as president. It’s the hardest blow I’ve had yet… Everything I’ve worked for, loved, and suffered for has been kicked out of me.”

Machen wrote to Buswell that this represented “the parting of ways between a mere fundamentalism on one hand and Presbyterianism on the other hand.” His vision was for a thoroughly confessional Presbyterian church, not one that merely participated in broader evangelical movements.

That winter, despite illness and family objections, Machen traveled by train to North Dakota to encourage three small OP churches pastored by Westminster Seminary graduate Samuel Allen. This wealthy, elite man from Baltimore considered it worth risking his health to support struggling frontier congregations. During the visit, Machen developed pneumonia and was hospitalized in Bismarck.

On January 1, 1937—just seven months after the OPC’s formation—Machen died. His final words, dictated to his nurse as a telegram to John Murray, were: “I’m so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” Even in death, Machen’s focus remained on the Reformed doctrine of justification—not just Christ’s death for our penalty, but His perfect life securing our eternal life.

The Split of 1937

The 1937 General Assembly brought renewed conflict over alcohol use. Overtures demanded that the church recommend total abstinence, calling for members to be “fast unflinching and active friends of temperance, abstaining from all forms and fashions” that might countenance drinking and “disentangling themselves from all implication with the traffic and manufacture” of alcohol.

The Assembly rejected these overtures, maintaining that Scripture and the confession were sufficient without adding new laws. This proved to be the final straw. J. Oliver Buswell, Carl McIntyre, and twelve other ministers—roughly a quarter of the denomination’s clergy—withdrew from the OPC and formed the Bible Presbyterian Synod.

This group would later split again in the 1950s. One faction, led by Carl McIntyre, became known for anti-communist activism during the Cold War. The other faction included notable figures like Francis Schaeffer and Jay Adams. Through a complex series of mergers and splits involving the Reformed Presbyterian Church, this second group eventually founded Covenant College and Covenant Seminary before joining the Presbyterian Church in America in 1983.

Choosing a Name with Teeth

An interesting sidebar involves the church’s name change. Originally called the Presbyterian Church of America, the denomination faced a lawsuit from the PCUSA claiming name confusion. In 1939, after considering options like “The True Presbyterian Church of the World” (my personal favorite), the Assembly selected “Orthodox Presbyterian Church” on the sixth ballot after nearly eight hours of debate.

The name declared exactly where the church stood “in the controversy between Christianity and modernism” and showed they took their “confession of faith seriously.” As one member described it, the name “has teeth.”

Lessons for Today

By 1939, the OPC had 5,549 members, 64 ministers, and 64 congregations. The early conflicts had established crucial principles that continue to define the denomination: commitment to confessional Presbyterian distinctives rather than generic evangelicalism, adherence to Scripture and the Westminster Standards without adding extra-biblical requirements, and willingness to remain small rather than compromise theological integrity.

Someone asked recently whether this makes the OPC too willing to fight, always looking for conflicts even among fellow conservatives. That’s a fair criticism that deserves ongoing consideration. However, these early years demonstrate that the central issue wasn’t a love of fighting but a determination to be faithful to what they understood as biblical and confessional Christianity, even when that faithfulness proved costly.

Machen’s example remains instructive—a wealthy man who could have lived comfortably but instead chose to serve struggling churches, even unto death, because he believed the Lord had called him to love and serve Christ’s church. His final testimony points us to the heart of the gospel: our hope rests not in our own efforts but in the perfect righteousness of Christ, both His life and death, credited to us by faith.

Today we continue our examination of American Presbyterianism, focusing on the critical period from 1923 to 1936 that led to the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This era was marked by escalating theological conflict, institutional battles, and ultimately the painful but necessary separation of those committed to biblical orthodoxy from the Presbyterian Church in the USA.

The Auburn Affirmation and Its Aftermath (1923-1925)

Background: The Five Fundamentals

Following the 1923 General Assembly’s declaration that ordination candidates must affirm five fundamentals—inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and Christ’s miracles—liberal opposition quickly organized. In December 1923, theological liberals met in Auburn, New York, to draft what became known as the Auburn Affirmation.

The Two-Pronged Attack

The Auburn Affirmation made two distinct arguments. First, it challenged the General Assembly’s authority to impose these requirements without presbyterial consent—a constitutional point with which even conservatives agreed. However, the document went beyond procedural objections to attack the fundamentals themselves, dismissing them as mere “theories about the Bible” rather than biblical truths.

Consider their statement on inerrancy: they claimed that belief in biblical inerrancy “impairs [Scripture’s] supreme authority of faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.” This wasn’t simply a disagreement about authority—it was a direct assault on the nature of Scripture itself.

Within a year, nearly 1,300 ministers had signed the Auburn Affirmation, representing about 10% of the denomination’s clergy. The theological battle lines were now clearly drawn.

Machen’s Response

J. Gresham Machen quickly responded with characteristic clarity, writing to the New York Times that many signers “agree with Dr. Fosdick in being opposed not only to the creed of the Presbyterian Church, but to everything that is really distinctive of historical Christianity. The plain fact is that two mutually exclusive religions are being proclaimed in the pulpits of the Presbyterian Church.”

This statement encapsulated Machen’s central thesis from Christianity and Liberalism: these were not mere differences of emphasis but fundamentally different religions operating under the same denominational roof.

The Moderate Response and Its Consequences (1925)

Charles Erdman’s Leadership

At the 1925 General Assembly, Charles Erdman was elected moderator. Though conservative in many respects and a contributor to The Fundamentals, Erdman represented the moderate position that prioritized unity over doctrinal purity. When Henry Sloan Coffin of Union Seminary threatened that liberals would leave if disciplinary action was taken, Erdman viewed this as the worst possible outcome.

Rather than addressing the clear violations of Presbyterian doctrine, Erdman steered the assembly toward establishing a commission to study “the present spiritual condition of our church and the causes making for unrest.” This commission, composed primarily of theological moderates, would spend a year investigating why there was discord in the denomination.

The Commission’s Report: Blame the Conservatives

The commission’s 1926 report proved devastating to the conservative cause. It identified five causes for denominational discord: intellectual movements, historical ecclesiastical differences, varying approaches to polity, theological developments, and misunderstanding. Notably absent from this list was any mention of liberalism or modernism.

The report went further, declaring that “it had discovered no radically liberal group in the church” and blaming the “misjudgments and unfair and untrue statements of conservatives” for causing conflict. The Auburn Affirmationists, who had explicitly denied fundamental Christian doctrines, were apparently not the problem—those who opposed them were.

The Battle for Princeton Seminary (1925-1929)

Machen Under Attack

Simultaneously, Machen faced personal attack at Princeton Seminary. When the board appointed him chairman of the Department of Apologetics and Christian Ethics, two charges were raised against him at the General Assembly.

First, Machen had voted against his presbytery’s resolution supporting Prohibition enforcement. His opposition wasn’t necessarily to Prohibition itself but to the presbytery’s inappropriate interference in civil affairs, violating the Westminster Confession’s restriction on ecclesiastical courts meddling in civil matters except in extraordinary circumstances.

Second, and more significantly, colleagues Charles Erdman and J. Ross Stevenson accused Machen of being “temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgment of others, and implacable to those who did not agree with him.”

Character Assassination

This character assassination reveals the heart of the moderate position. They weren’t opposed to conservative theology per se—they were opposed to anyone who would insist that contrary positions were wrong. Norman Pittenger, a liberal Anglican minister who knew Machen personally, later wrote: “I got to know Machen personally. He was kind to me, polite and cooperative. I thought him a charming, vigorous, traditional, but kindly man.”

Pittenger could only recall one “biting comment” from Machen: that liberal Protestants focused on ethics because “they had nothing much else to believe in.” Even this observation, while pointed, was hardly evidence of the character defects his colleagues alleged.

The Seminary Reorganization

The General Assembly appointed another commission to study the Princeton conflict. Their solution was purely administrative: combine the seminary’s two boards into one. This reorganization, implemented in 1929 despite legal challenges from Machen, placed two Auburn Affirmation signers on the board—men who denied biblical inerrancy now had authority over theological education.

For Machen, this was the final straw. He could not continue at an institution where those who denied fundamental Christian doctrines held governing authority.

Westminster Theological Seminary (1929)

A New Beginning

In summer 1929, Machen and several colleagues traveled to Philadelphia to establish Westminster Theological Seminary. Their goal was explicit: to continue the old Princeton theology of Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, maintaining “the same principles that old Princeton maintained, that the Christian religion set forth in the confession of faith of the Presbyterian Church is true.”

The Cost of Conviction

Machen’s decision reveals remarkable character. As an independently wealthy bachelor who enjoyed European travel, mountain climbing, and football games, he could have lived comfortably as a Greek professor at Princeton. Instead, he chose the uncertain path of starting a new institution during the onset of the Great Depression, ultimately shortening his life in service to biblical truth.

The Faculty

Several distinguished scholars joined Machen, including Robert Dick Wilson, whose story deserves special attention. At age 73, Wilson left his secure position at Princeton, abandoning his pension to stand with Machen. This Old Testament scholar had mastered 45 languages to defend the Hebrew Scriptures against higher criticism. After teaching one year at Westminster, he died at 74—a man who sacrificed everything for the cause of biblical fidelity.

The Missions Crisis (1930-1935)

“Rethinking Missions”

In 1932, the Rockefeller-funded report “Rethinking Missions” called for Protestant missions to abandon Christianity’s exclusive claims and work cooperatively with other religions. The report’s goal was “promoting world understanding on a spiritual level” rather than Christian conversion.

Pearl Buck, a PCUSA missionary to China who would later win the Nobel Prize in Literature, enthusiastically endorsed the report. She declared herself “weary unto death with this incessant preaching” and advocated spreading Christianity “by mode of life than preaching.” Buck also stated: “I do not believe in original sin. I agree with the Chinese who feel their people should be protected from such superstition.”

Machen’s Response

Machen sent an overture to the 1933 General Assembly requesting that only Bible-believing missionaries be appointed and that the board be instructed to ensure missionary orthodoxy. The assembly voted down Machen’s overture and gave Robert Speer, the missions secretary, a standing ovation—clearly indicating their support for the status quo.

The Independent Board

When the denomination refused to address the missions crisis, Machen announced formation of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions in summer 1933. This board, starting with 15 ministers, five ruling elders, and five women, would send missionaries committed to biblical Christianity and gospel proclamation.

The denomination’s response was swift and harsh. The 1934 General Assembly compared not supporting denominational boards to refusing communion—effectively treating doctrinal conviction as ecclesiastical rebellion.

Trial and Suspension (1934-1936)

The Charges

In December 1934, Machen was charged with multiple violations of his ordination vows, including “violation of his ordination vows,” “disapproving of the government and discipline of the church,” “advocating rebellious defiance,” and “contempt and rebellion against his superiors.”

The trial, conducted in February and March 1935, was widely regarded as unfair. The moderator was himself an Auburn Affirmation signer, virtually guaranteeing bias against Machen. On March 29, 1935, Machen was suspended from ministry in the PCUSA.

Appeals and Final Break

Machen appealed to the 1936 General Assembly, which upheld his suspension. The denomination had made clear that there was no place for those who insisted on biblical orthodoxy and confessional fidelity.

The Birth of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936)

June 11, 1936

On June 11, 1936, the Constitutional Covenant Union—formed the previous year to defend Presbyterian constitutional principles—transformed into the first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to avoid confusion with the PCUSA).

Machen reflected on this moment: “What a joyous moment it was how the long years of struggle seemed to sink into nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts. We became members at last of a true Presbyterian church.”

The New Denomination

The initial assembly included 34 ministers and 17 ruling elders, with an average ministerial age of just 34. Within months, membership grew to 75 ministers organized into nine presbyteries. These were largely young men willing to sacrifice security and career prospects for doctrinal integrity.

Conclusion

The formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church represents both tragedy and triumph. Tragedy, because denominational division is always painful and contrary to Christ’s prayer for unity. Triumph, because when institutional churches abandon biblical truth, faithful believers must choose Scripture over human authority.

Machen and his colleagues faced a choice between comfortable compromise and costly conviction. They chose to stand with the Word of God, establishing a church committed to the Westminster Confession’s declaration that Scripture is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

Their legacy reminds us that defending biblical truth often requires sacrifice, but the alternative—remaining silent while error advances—ultimately serves neither Christ nor His church. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church emerged from this crucible refined and committed to the principle that Christianity without biblical authority is not Christianity at all.

We’re continuing our series on American Presbyterian history, focusing specifically on the Northern Presbyterian Church during the 1910s and 1920s. This period sets the stage for the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. While we’re leaving out important topics like missions, which were exploding during this era, our focus remains on the theological controversies that shaped these pivotal decades.

Last week we discussed Charles Briggs and his trial, which led to the revision of the Westminster Confession. According to some, this represented the triumph of the new school vision of a broadening, less confessional church. To understand the significance of these events, we must grasp the scale we’re discussing.

The Size and Growth of the Northern Presbyterian Church

In 1900, the Northern Presbyterian Church reached one million members. Remember, this denomination started with just a handful of people in the early 1700s. Two hundred years later, it had grown to one million members.

What’s often overlooked in histories of this era is the continued explosive growth. From 1900 to 1920, the Northern Presbyterian Church grew from one million to 1.6 million people, gaining 600,000 members over twenty years. To put this in perspective, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church today has about 30,000 communicant members. We’re talking about a body an order of magnitude larger than the OPC.

Around 1920, the PCUSA was baptizing 40,000 babies annually and 40,000 adult members, totaling 80,000 baptisms every year. That’s more babies baptized annually than the entire OPC membership today. When the OPC formed in 1936, it started with about 5,000 people, making it barely a blip on the scale of the Northern Church.

This rapid growth inevitably impacted the church’s ongoing struggle over its identity.

Three Interconnected Movements

Three movements were influencing the Presbyterian Church during this time, though they weren’t identical: dispensationalism, premillennialism, and fundamentalism. The early 1900s, along with the late 1800s, represented a time of tremendous change in America and worldwide. Industrialization, urbanization, the rise of modern science, and the establishment of modern educational institutions with doctoral degrees were transforming society.

The Rise of Fundamentalism

During this period of change, some in the church pushed back against modernism in both culture and church. They became identified as fundamentalists, a term that initially came from a series of publications starting around 1910 called “The Fundamentals.”

These publications were funded by Lyman Stewart, a Presbyterian dispensationalist oil baron. Stewart had originally intended to enter ministry and had saved $150 for seminary. Instead, he invested that money in the oil business during the Pennsylvania oil boom and became extremely wealthy, though he remained a godly man. He used his wealth to fund these theological essays on topics like the virgin birth of Christ, the fallacies of higher criticism, justification by faith, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the errors of Mormonism, and what would become the Jehovah’s Witness movement.

Contributors to “The Fundamentals” included B.B. Warfield, the prominent Presbyterian theologian; Scofield of the Scofield Reference Bible; and even Charles Erdman, who would later become an opponent of J. Gresham Machen.

Machen’s View of Fundamentalism

Machen later expressed ambivalence about being called a fundamentalist. He preferred the term “orthodoxy,” asking why Christians needed this new term when they already had “orthodox Christians.” This preference likely influenced the choice of the name “Orthodox Presbyterian Church” after Machen’s death.

Historian George Marsden defines fundamentalism as “militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.” The term “militant” refers to aggressive opposition, not military action.

In 1935, a year before the OPC’s formation, Machen clarified his position:

I never call myself a fundamentalist. There is indeed no inherent objection to the term, and if this disjunction is between fundamentalism and modernism, then I am willing to call myself a fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a fundamentalist, but a Calvinist, that is, an adherent of the Reformed faith. As such, I regard myself as standing in the central current of the Christian life, the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin, which has found noteworthy expression in America in the great tradition represented by Charles Hodge and Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield and the other representatives of the Princeton School.

Machen saw himself not as a fundamentalist, but as a confessional Presbyterian.

Distinguishing Machen from Popular Fundamentalism

Daryl Hart, an OPC ruling elder and the world’s leading expert on Machen, makes an important distinction:

Machen was indeed concerned about the dangers of cultural modernism that cultural modernism posed to a traditional faith, but he was even more worried about modernism of American Protestantism and the cultural outlook upon which Protestant reconstructions of Christianity rested. For Machen, the moves by Protestants to modernize the faith and not efforts of cultural modernists to move beyond Christianity comprise the greatest danger to Christianity.

While Machen was concerned about challenges from modern science and philosophy, his greatest concern was the church itself adapting to the modern age by changing its theology.

J. Gresham Machen: Early Life and Background

John Gresham Machen was born July 28, 1881, in Baltimore. Though we don’t think of Baltimore as a southern city today, it was considered southern in the 1800s. Many southerners had moved there after the Civil War. Maryland was a border state during the war, remaining in the Union but maintaining slavery.

Machen’s father was a prominent attorney who eventually argued before the Supreme Court. Originally Episcopal, he began attending Franklin Street Presbyterian Church, a Southern Presbyterian congregation in Baltimore, even before marriage.

Machen’s mother was from Macon, Georgia, and came from a wealthy southern family. Her father served as a ruling elder in the Southern Presbyterian Church for 44 years. She was exceptionally godly and scholarly, later authoring “The Bible in Browning” about Victorian poet Robert Browning’s use of scripture. She was twenty-two years younger than her husband, who married in his forties.

The family attended Franklin Street Presbyterian Church, where Machen became a communicant member at age 14 in 1895.

The Influence of Home Education

Machen later reflected on his education:

In Baltimore, I attended a good private school. It was purely secular. In it, I learned nothing about the Bible or the great things of the Christian faith. But I did not need to learn about these things in school, for I learned them from my mother at home. That was the best school of all. And in it, without any merit of my own, I will venture to say that I had acquired a better knowledge of the contents of the Bible at 12 years of age than is possessed by many theological students of the present day. The shorter catechism was not omitted. I repeated it perfectly, question and answer, at a very tender age, and the divine revelation of which is so glorious a summary was stored up in my mind and heart.

Like B.B. Warfield before him, Machen didn’t grow up on a Kentucky farm but in a wealthy southern family with parents who loved the Lord and took responsibility for their children’s spiritual nurture. His parents also read “Pilgrim’s Progress” to him, which had a lasting influence.

Ned Stonehouse, an early Westminster Seminary faculty member who wrote Machen’s biography, noted the significance of this home instruction:

There was moreover careful instruction of the shorter catechism and a commitment to memory of questions and answers. To this, he later attributed to a significant degree his love of the noble tradition of the Reformed faith as expressed in its classic symbols as over against the meager skeletal creeds of a mere fundamentalism.

Machen believed in the core doctrines that fundamentalists emphasized, but he saw himself as a confessional Presbyterian whose theology went far beyond skeletal creeds.

University Years and Early Career

At 17, Machen attended Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, studying classics and graduating in 1901 at age 20. Uncertain about his future, he briefly went to Chicago planning to study law and banking at the University of Chicago but didn’t like it and left.

In 1902, he decided to study theology at Princeton Seminary. Though a Southerner in the Southern Presbyterian Church, he chose Princeton, eventually joining the Northern Presbyterian Church from which the OPC would emerge.

At Princeton, Warfield and other distinguished faculty taught at this large institution. Machen enrolled simultaneously as a master’s of arts student at Princeton University, studying with Woodrow Wilson, who was then university president and later became U.S. President.

Despite attending seminary, Machen told his father he wasn’t pursuing ministry and wouldn’t seek ordination until age 32.

A Character Who Enjoyed Life

Machen was quite a character during his seminary years. He complained that the seminary was run like a boarding school and compared the uneven tennis courts to the Swiss Alps. Later, as a professor, he helped oversee resurfacing those courts.

He had extensive travel experience, having climbed the Matterhorn at one point. He called afternoon classes “an evil invention” that prohibited fun and recreation. He traveled to New York City for plays, attended Johns Hopkins lacrosse and football games, rode his bike from Princeton to Philadelphia for games, went ice skating on the Delaware Canal, and at least once skipped Hebrew class for a Princeton football game.

Machen enjoyed life and its pleasures while excelling academically at two intensive graduate institutions.

The Crucial Year in Germany

In 1905, having finished degrees at both Princeton University and Princeton Seminary, Machen followed the common practice of studying theology in Germany. There he encountered Wilhelm Hermann, arguably the most prominent liberal Christian scholar of the time.

Hermann taught that Christianity was primarily moral, not dogmatic. For Hermann, Christianity wasn’t fundamentally about theology but about how we live. We don’t need to worry about the Bible’s historical accuracy because what we need is its moral teaching to follow Christ’s example.

This theology deeply challenged Machen. He wrote to his father: “Hermann speaks right to the heart. And I have been thrown into all confusion by what he says. So much deeper is his devotion to Christ than anything I have known in myself during the past few years.”

To his brother, he wrote: “Hermann affirms very little of what I have become accustomed to regard as essential Christianity. And yet there is no doubt in my mind that he is a Christian, and a Christian of a peculiarly earnest type.”

This year in Germany could have changed Machen’s entire trajectory. However, while wrestling with liberal theology, he somehow concluded that the church needed intellectually engaged study and teaching of scripture. Despite his past frustrations with Princeton, he decided it would be the right place for such work.

Return to Princeton and Teaching Career

After his year in Germany, Machen was offered a position as lecturer of New Testament at Princeton Seminary, teaching Greek alongside B.B. Warfield, Francis Patton, and other faculty. True to form, after his first faculty meeting, he wrote that it was “long and stupid.”

Starting in 1906, Machen began establishing his reputation as a New Testament scholar. In 1912, he started teaching Sunday school to teenagers at First Presbyterian Church in Princeton, later becoming superintendent with one condition: he didn’t have to lead singing. In the 1920s, he became a stated supply preacher there.

To become an assistant professor, ordination was required. He was ordained in 1914 in the Northern Presbyterian Church and became assistant professor of New Testament in 1915.

Restlessness and Political Views

During this period, Machen showed considerable restlessness, considering leaving the seminary. Union Theological Seminary in Richmond (the Southern Presbyterian seminary, not the liberal one in New York) tried to recruit him. His lifelong single status may have contributed to this restlessness.

Machen held libertarian political views that influenced his perspective throughout life. He opposed U.S. involvement in World War I, though he was patriotic and wanted to help soldiers. These political views included opposition to jaywalking laws (which he saw as government overreach), establishment of national parks (federal overreach), a federal board of education, and a child labor amendment to the Constitution.

World War I Service

Though opposing the war, Machen wanted to support the soldiers. He considered becoming a chaplain but decided it wasn’t right for him. Instead, he took leave from Princeton and served with the YMCA in France, essentially mixing hot chocolate and providing comfort for soldiers.

His letters from the front (published in “Letters from the Front”) show how the war’s tragic realities humbled him and pushed him toward being more of a non-millennialist.

Post-War Unification Efforts

The era after World War I saw widespread unification efforts. The League of Nations was established in 1920. In Canada in 1925, the United Church of Canada was formed, uniting Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians.

A similar organic union effort began in the United States during the war, initially involving 30 denominations seeking to become one church. By 1920, this was down to 18 denominations invited to form the United Churches of Christ in America, including Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists, and others.

The 1920 General Assembly of the PCUSA passed a resolution to join this union. Machen attended this assembly, and this effort radicalized the remaining 16-17 years of his life.

Opposition Within Princeton

Two Princeton Seminary faculty members, J. Ross Stevenson and Charles Erdman, vocally supported this union. Erdman had even written for “The Fundamentals,” yet now supported joining a national union church. This concerned Machen deeply. These men claimed to be Presbyterian and believe the Bible and confession, yet supported ignoring all differences to unite as one denomination.

Stevenson later became Princeton Seminary president and would claim: “I wish to state most emphatically that I do not want an inclusive seminary at Princeton, as would include modernist liberals or those of whatever name who are disloyal to the standards of the Presbyterian Church.”

Yet both supported the union effort, creating significant conflict with Machen, who insisted that Presbyterian distinctions and catechetical teachings mattered.

Machen’s Response to Union Efforts

Machen was not impressed by the organic union plan. He wrote that it “left out not some, but practically all of the great essentials of the Christian faith.” The plan’s preamble “shows how utterly vague and nullifying would have been the testimony of such a merger” and demonstrated “that there were many in our church who seem perfectly indifferent to doctrine.”

Though the plan was defeated in the presbyteries, a third of them actually voted in favor, representing significant support.

Before this time, Machen had established himself as a conservative New Testament scholar. After this, he would rise to prominence not just in conservative Presbyterianism but in the broader fundamentalist movement as someone willing to fight for scripture against modernism.

The Death of Warfield and Changes at Princeton

In 1921, both the union effort failed and B.B. Warfield died. Machen said “the spirit of old Princeton left with Warfield.” He feared Princeton Seminary wouldn’t be the same.

Harry Emerson Fosdick’s Challenge

In 1922, a significant event occurred. Harry Emerson Fosdick, a liberal Baptist minister serving as stated supply preacher at First Presbyterian Church of New York City, preached a sermon called “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” that rocked Protestant America.

Fosdick argued:

Already all of us must have heard about the people who call themselves the fundamentalists. Their apparent intention is to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions. We should not identify the fundamentalists with the conservatives. All fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. The best conservatives can give lessons to the liberals in a true liberality of spirit, but the fundamentalist program is essentially illiberal and intolerant.

Fosdick wanted conservatives who could share views with liberals doubting the Bible without insisting that church members believe the Bible. He mentioned fundamentalist insistence on the virgin birth, special theory of inspiration (caricaturing inerrancy), and substitutionary atonement.

John D. Rockefeller Jr. had 130,000 copies of this sermon printed and distributed. After Fosdick left First Presbyterian, Rockefeller brought him to a Baptist church and built a massive cathedral for him to preach in.

The Response and Machen’s Book

Clarence McCartney of Arch Street Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia quickly preached a response sermon: “Shall Unbelief Win?” This began a friendship between McCartney and Machen as they discussed responses to liberalism.

Following the union plan and Fosdick’s sermon, Machen was invited to speak at Moody Bible Institute’s conference, corresponding with the publication of his most important work: “Christianity and Liberalism.”

Machen wrote:

Christianity they will tell us is a life and not a doctrine. Now that seems to be a devout and pious utterance, but it is radically false all the same.

Machen argued that Christianity without historical foundation isn’t Christianity at all. If you try to have something like Christianity that’s merely moral and not based on biblical history, biblical inerrancy, and a Christ who lived, died, and was raised for us, you don’t have Christianity. You have a different religion, which he called liberalism.

Machen saw that what Hermann taught in Germany was invading the church and gutting Christianity of its substance. Following 1 Corinthians 15: “If Christ has not been raised, our hope is in vain.”

The Ordination Crisis

That same year, New York Presbytery ordained two Union Seminary graduates who would not affirm the virgin birth of Christ. This created immediate conflict at that year’s General Assembly, which once again affirmed five fundamentals of faith: inerrancy, virgin birth, vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection of Christ, and the reality of miracles.

The General Assembly issued corrective instruction to New York Presbytery about allowing a Baptist to minister in a Presbyterian Church.

Looking Ahead

This would lead to the Auburn Affirmation, where liberals would argue that the General Assembly lacked authority to require belief in these essentials, and furthermore, that these things weren’t even true anyway. This would create a major firestorm we’ll examine next week.

Conclusion

“Christianity and Liberalism” remains as relevant today as it was 100 years ago when Machen wrote it. Machen was an incredibly clear writer, and this book provides a powerful defense of what Christians need to believe: that Christ lived and died and was raised for us in reality.

The conflicts of this era weren’t merely academic debates but struggles over the very nature of Christianity itself. Machen’s insistence on confessional Presbyterianism and historical Christianity would shape the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and continue to influence conservative Presbyterianism today.

Last week, we explored the Reconstruction era and the Gilded Age as America expanded westward. We saw how the Presbyterian church grew alongside the country during this period. Today, we continue our journey through the late 19th century, but we’re also beginning to shift our focus. As we approach Christmas, this class will increasingly center on the history of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which was founded in 1936, rather than surveying all the different churches of the 20th century.

The events we’ll discuss today set the stage for major controversies that would eventually lead to the formation of the OPC. We’ll examine two key figures whose influence shaped Presbyterian history in opposite directions: Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and Charles Briggs.

The Legacy of Charles Hodge and the Rise of B.B. Warfield

Charles Hodge’s Death and Influence

In 1878, Charles Hodge died after an extraordinary 58-year tenure as professor at Princeton Seminary (1820-1878). During this period, he taught more Presbyterian theological students than any other professor of his era. His lasting contribution remains his three-volume Systematic Theology, which replaced Francis Turretin’s Latin theology as the standard text at Princeton Seminary.

B.B. Warfield’s Remarkable Background

Among Hodge’s finest students was Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, who had begun studying under him in 1873. Warfield came from a family of extraordinary prominence and wealth. Born in Lexington, Kentucky in 1851, he belonged to the distinguished Breckinridge family on his mother’s side.

The Breckinridge family’s influence in American history was remarkable. His great-grandfather John served as attorney general under Thomas Jefferson. His grandfather Robert was a leader in the old school Presbyterian church and later became president of Danville Theological Seminary (now Louisville Theological Seminary). Two of Robert’s sons, Warfield’s uncles, fought on opposite sides of the Civil War, literally embodying the phrase “brother against brother.” One uncle became vice president under James Buchanan and later served as Jefferson Davis’s final secretary of war, ultimately encouraging Davis to surrender to the North.

Early Life and Education

The Warfield children received careful education at home. As his brother Ethelbert later wrote, “youthful objects had little effect in a household where the shorter catechism was ordinarily completed in the sixth year.” By age six or seven, the children had memorized not only the Shorter Catechism with Scripture proofs, but also the Larger Catechism.

Interestingly, young Warfield’s early interests were strongly scientific. He collected bird’s eggs, butterflies, and geological specimens, studied local flora and fauna, and read Darwin’s newly published works with enthusiasm. He was so certain of pursuing a scientific career that he “strenuously objected to studying Greek.”

After graduating from Princeton University at age 19 with highest honors in science and mathematics, Warfield spent two years exploring Europe. Surprisingly, during this time he decided to enter the ministry, catching his family completely off guard.

Ministry and Tragedy

Following seminary at Princeton, where he studied under Charles Hodge, Warfield pastored briefly in Dayton, Ohio and Baltimore. In 1876, he married Annie and took an extended honeymoon to Europe. During this trip, a traumatic experience in a thunderstorm left Annie so troubled that she became essentially homebound for the rest of her life. Warfield cared for her throughout their 39-year marriage, which meant he rarely traveled for speaking engagements or even attended General Assembly.

Academic Career

In 1878, at just 26 years old, Warfield became professor of New Testament literature and exegesis at Western Theological Seminary (now Pittsburgh Theological Seminary). When A.A. Hodge died in 1887, Warfield was called to Princeton Seminary to fill the chair of didactic and polemic theology that had been held by both Charles Hodge and his son.

Warfield taught at Princeton from 1887 until his death in 1921, becoming an ardent defender of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. His prolific writings defended Scripture against the higher criticism emerging from Germany, which was beginning to influence American theological education.

Warfield’s Influence on the Future

One of Warfield’s most significant students was J. Gresham Machen, who would later become one of the founders of the OPC. When Warfield died in 1921, Machen observed: “Dr. Warfield’s funeral took place yesterday afternoon at First Church of Princeton. It seemed to me that old Princeton, a great institution it was, died when Dr. Warfield was carried out.”

This was eight years before the formation of Westminster Seminary. There’s a strong case to be made that the OPC wouldn’t exist today without Dr. Warfield’s influence on Machen and others of that generation.

Charles Briggs and the Challenge to Orthodox Faith

Early Life and Conversion

While Warfield represented orthodox scholarship, Charles Briggs embodied the growing liberal challenge to traditional Presbyterian faith. Born in 1841 in New York City, Briggs went south to study at the University of Virginia in 1859, just before the Civil War. During his second year at UVA, he was converted and joined a Presbyterian church in Charlottesville.

As war approached, Briggs left the South and returned to New York City. He served briefly in the Union Army, helping defend Washington, D.C. from Confederate troops at the beginning of the war.

Theological Education and German Influence

Briggs enrolled at Union Seminary in New York City, founded in 1836. After graduation, he went to Berlin to study, following a common pattern among Americans interested in theology. Germany had become the center of leading biblical scholarship, but it was also where higher criticism originated, bringing “great distrust of scripture and the authority of scripture.”

While exposure to German scholarship didn’t corrupt everyone (both Warfield and Machen also studied in Germany), it seemed to have a significant influence on Briggs.

The Push for Church Union

In 1874, Briggs became professor of Hebrew at Union Seminary. During his tenure, he became a strong advocate for church union, both Presbyterian and otherwise. This touched on one of the great ongoing tensions in Presbyterianism: How big should the tent be? How far should we go in efforts for union? What theological issues are we willing to compromise on for the sake of unity?

In 1887, Briggs declared that “the great barrier to reunion in Christendom is subscription to elaborate creeds.” This returned to a fundamental issue that had plagued American Presbyterianism since the early 1700s: What is the proper place of creeds and subscription to creeds, particularly for church officers?

The Controversial Book: “Whither?”

In 1889, Briggs published a book titled Whither? A Theological Question for the Times. In it, he defended the Westminster Confession from what he saw as its misguided supporters. He charged that American Presbyterianism had “departed from the Westminster standards and substituted a false orthodoxy in its place.”

This false teaching, which he labeled “orthodoxism,” was coming from Princeton Seminary, particularly the Hodge-Warfield formulation of inerrancy. Briggs wrote:

“Orthodoxism assumes to know the truth and is unwilling to learn. It is haughty and arrogant. Assuming the divine prerogatives of infallibility and inerrancy, it hates the truth that is unfamiliar to it and prosecutes it to the uttermost.”

In contrast, he claimed his position represented true orthodoxy:

“Orthodoxy loves the truth. It is ever anxious to learn. For it knows how greatly the truth of God transcends human knowledge. It is meek, lowly, and reverent. It is full of charity and love. It does not recognize an infallible pope. It does not bow to an infallible theologian.”

Briggs believed that “progress in religion, in doctrine, and in life is demanded of our age of the world more than any other age.” Rather than returning to the Confession as one might expect, his solution was to change it.

The Authority of Scripture Controversy

The Inaugural Lecture

In 1891, Briggs was promoted to Chair of Biblical Studies at Union Seminary, requiring him to re-subscribe to the Westminster Confession. Immediately after doing so, he delivered his inaugural lecture titled “The Authority of Scripture.”

From the beginning, Briggs declared: “I shall venture to affirm that as far as I can see, there are errors in the Bible that no one has been able to explain away. And the theory that they are not in the original text is a sheer assumption.”

The lecture taught several controversial points:

• Reason and the church are both foundations of divine authority apart from Scripture
• Errors may have existed in the original text of Scripture
• Old Testament predictions have been reversed by history
• Messianic predictions cannot be fulfilled
• Moses didn’t write the Pentateuch
• Isaiah didn’t write the second half of his book
• The process of redemption extends to the world to come, implying continued sin in heaven

Church Response

Sixty-three presbyteries immediately sent overtures to the General Assembly asking them to act against Briggs. The Assembly’s first action was to veto Briggs’ appointment to the seminary.

That same year, meeting in Portland, Oregon, the Northern Church adopted what became known as the Portland Deliverance, asserting that all ministers must accept the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Remarkably, this was the same church that would later become so liberal that the OPC would separate from it in 1936.

When Union Seminary’s board didn’t appreciate being told they couldn’t have Briggs as their professor, they renounced the authority of the General Assembly and became an independent seminary. Two years later, the Assembly found Briggs guilty of heresy and suspended him from ministry in the PCUSA.

The Path of Liberalism

Union Seminary still exists today in New York City. Four years ago, they posted on Twitter a picture of students “confessing to plants” in chapel, “offering grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt, and sorrow to the beings who sustain us.” This illustrates the tragic path that liberalism and distrust of the Bible leads to.

In 1899, ten years after his suspension, Briggs was ordained as an Episcopal priest and continued teaching at Union Seminary, having simply walked away from everything Presbyterian.

The Movement for Confessional Revision

The Committee of Fifty

Despite Briggs’ departure, the idea of confessional revision continued gaining momentum in the Northern Church. In 1900, the General Assembly appointed a committee of 50 to study confessional revision and bring proposals for changes.

Warfield was asked to serve on this committee but expressed his grief: “It is an inexpressible grief to me to see the church spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever-changing sentiment of the world about it.” The committee even included Benjamin Harrison, former President of the United States, as a ruling elder from First Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis.

The 1903 Changes

In 1903, the Northern Church adopted two new chapters to the Westminster Confession: “The Holy Spirit” and “The Love of God and Missions.” These additions were criticized for softening the confession and making it more open to Arminianism.

More troubling was the revision of Chapter 16, which had stated that the works of the unregenerate are sinful and cannot please God. The revision changed “sinful” to “praiseworthy,” representing a substantial theological shift.

Other changes included removing the statement that the Pope is the Antichrist and adding a declaratory statement that softened the doctrine of election. When the OPC was formed in 1936, it chose not to adopt the two new chapters but did keep the changes about the Pope and some minor adjustments about oaths.

The Cumberland Presbyterian Merger

These changes opened the door for the Northern Presbyterian Church to merge in 1906 with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The Cumberland Presbyterians, formed in Kentucky around 1805, had become Arminian and had less stringent educational requirements for ministers. Many argued that the confessional changes made this merger possible by softening the Calvinism of the Westminster standards.

Notably, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church had already been ordaining women, which is likely how the PCUSA received its first female ministers.

The Rise of Dispensationalism and Premillennialism

The Movements That Would Divide the Early OPC

Three related but distinct movements developed during this era that would become crucial issues in the early days of the OPC: dispensationalism, premillennialism, and fundamentalism. These are important because just two years after the OPC’s founding in 1936, the denomination split in 1938 over whether OPC ministers could be dispensational or premillennial, along with questions about alcohol consumption. This split led to the formation of the Bible Presbyterian Church.

John Nelson Darby and Modern Dispensationalism

In the 1830s, John Nelson Darby, an English minister, became the founder of modern dispensationalism and the Plymouth Brethren church movement. Darby divided the history of Scripture and mankind into multiple dispensations.

While the Westminster Confession itself mentions dispensations, saying there are “not two different covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations,” Darby’s system was fundamentally different. Rather than seeing history unified under the covenant of grace, dispensationalists divide history into different periods where God deals with people in entirely different ways.

The early dispensationalists drew a hard distinction between Israel and the church, seeing salvation as operating differently in the age of Israel versus the church age. Some called the church age a mere “parenthesis” in God’s primary work with Israel.

Presbyterian Attraction to Dispensationalism

Despite theological differences, many Presbyterians were attracted to dispensationalism because dispensationalists strongly supported the inerrancy of Scripture. When liberals like Charles Briggs were questioning Scripture, the dispensationalists’ high view of Scripture appealed to many Presbyterian conservatives.

James Hall Brooks, born in 1830, was a Presbyterian minister and premillennial dispensationalist who pastored in Ohio and St. Louis for 43 years. Warfield actually admired Brooks greatly, describing him as having “the voice of a lion and the vehemence of Elijah.”

Brooks formed the Niagara Bible Conference, which met annually near Niagara Falls for 20 years in the late 1800s, helping spread dispensationalism across America.

C.I. Scofield and Lasting Influence

In the 1880s, Brooks mentored a young minister in St. Louis named C.I. Scofield, who had a troubled past as a Confederate deserter, corrupt politician, and alcoholic before his conversion in the 1870s. Despite this background, Scofield learned dispensationalism from Brooks and eventually joined the Southern Presbyterian Church.

In 1909, Scofield published the Scofield Reference Bible, teaching seven dispensations of God’s working with mankind. This Bible had an enormous influence on American evangelicalism, spreading dispensationalism particularly in Baptist churches but also in other denominations, including some Presbyterian churches.

Conclusion

The events surrounding Charles Briggs and confessional revision represent one of the first major conflicts over the nature of Scripture and the place of confessions that would explode after World War I in the 1920s. These controversies, combined with the growing influence of dispensationalism and fundamentalism, set the stage for the Presbyterian controversy that would ultimately lead to the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936.

Next week, we’ll explore how these conflicts developed further, particularly examining the fundamentalist movement and the events that directly preceded the founding of the OPC.

The Church Divides: 1837-1861

By 1837, the mainline Presbyterian church had already split into Old School and New School denominations. Twenty years later, in 1857, the New School divided along North-South lines, four years before the Civil War began.

When shots were fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861, the Old School General Assembly still met together despite South Carolina’s secession. A New York minister named Gardner Spring pushed resolutions encouraging churches to support the federal government. The debate that followed reveals something remarkable about the era: assembly representatives actually corresponded by telegraph with White House cabinet members, seeking advice on whether to support these resolutions.

Attorney General Edward Bates advised against the Gardner Spring Resolutions, while Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase saw no objection to supporting the Constitution and union. Ultimately, the resolutions passed, forcing Southern Old School members to withdraw.

On December 4, 1861, in Augusta, Georgia, the Southern Old School formed a new church. This was the congregation where Woodrow Wilson’s father served as pastor. Within 25 years, one Presbyterian body had fractured into four separate denominations.

Presbyterian Fracturing at Its Peak

This period may represent the most fractured moment in American Presbyterian history. By the Civil War, you had:

• Four branches of the mainline church (Old School and New School, North and South)
• The RPCNA divided over constitutional issues
• The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in the South
• United Presbyterians in the North
• Cumberland Presbyterians in Kentucky and Tennessee
• Remnants of the Associate Synod

The Civil War became literally a war of brother against brother, with Christians on both sides. From the Northern churches, 270 ministers served as chaplains, while at least 130 Southern Old School ministers filled similar roles. Records indicate significant revivals occurred among troops during the war.

Stonewall Jackson: A Presbyterian General

Robert Dabney served as chaplain to the war’s most famous Presbyterian general, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Born in what’s now West Virginia, Jackson fought in the Mexican War before becoming an instructor at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington.

Jackson demonstrated genuine concern for African Americans’ spiritual welfare, organizing Sunday school classes for blacks in the community as early as 1855. He married twice, both wives being daughters of Presbyterian ministers. In 1857, four years before the war, his church elected him as a deacon. Jackson died from friendly fire during the conflict.

Local Church Life: First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh

While we can focus on grand denominational conflicts, daily church life continued even during wartime. First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh provides a window into how local congregations navigated this period.

From 1836 to 1855, Drury Lacy Jr. served as the church’s first pastor. His father had been president of Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, an important institution for training Southern Presbyterian ministers who didn’t want to travel north to Princeton Seminary.

In December 1855, 35-year-old Joseph Atkinson became pastor. This Princeton Seminary graduate would serve through the Civil War years. A contemporary described his ministry: “Pulpit ministrations of Mr. Atkinson were not calculated to produce great excitement and sudden reformation, but rather to lay those deep foundations of doctrinal truth so absolutely essential to all true godliness and Christian usefulness.”

Wartime Ministry and Reconstruction

During the war, Atkinson published sermons distributed among soldiers through Raleigh’s General Tract Agency. In one tract, he wrote: “When afflictions come, it is not enough that we bear a burden, we must cast our burden upon the Lord. Those who trust in the Lord during times of suffering shall be sustained.”

Like many Southerners, Atkinson quickly supported secession, calling the war “a spontaneous uprising of a whole people to repel lawless and atheistic aggressions.” He believed God sided with the Confederacy due to the South’s moral superiority, drawing parallels between Southern secession and the American Revolution’s break from English tyranny.

First Presbyterian Church included black members as early as 1857. After the war, when slaves gained freedom, many understandably chose to worship separately from churches that may have included former slave owners. By 1872, black members formed a new congregation affiliated with the Northern Presbyterian Church, which had established a board of missions for freedmen. Initially called Presbyterian Church Colored, it became Davie Street Presbyterian Church, which still exists today near Moore Square in Raleigh.

Church Schisms and Local Conflicts

The 1870s brought internal conflict to First Presbyterian Church. A property dispute between two members reached civil courts, dividing the congregation. Election confusion over church officers in 1877 increased tensions.

After Pastor Atkinson stepped down in 1875 for health reasons, some members petitioned Orange Presbytery to form a second church in Raleigh with Atkinson as pastor. Despite First Presbyterian’s session objecting that this would “crystallize hostile feelings” and create “rival institutions,” the presbytery approved the new congregation.

Second Presbyterian Church’s most famous member was Governor Zebulon Vance. Though initially uninterested in religion, he joined after his Presbyterian wife’s death. The church built a building downtown but never grew beyond 40 people, eventually dissolving in the 1890s as members returned to First Presbyterian.

Denominational Reunion in the South

When the war began, the Southern Old School immediately pursued union with the Southern New School. James Henley Thornwell opposed this union, but his death in 1862 removed the primary obstacle. In 1863, the Old School assembly appointed Robert Dabney to lead union discussions.

Dabney supported union partly from strategic concerns: if they didn’t absorb the New School, it might form its own seminary and grow stronger. Conservative Old School members insisted the union include repudiation of New School views, which was accomplished through Articles of Union condemning emotional manipulation in evangelism while affirming “true revivals of religion” and “scriptural warmth, affection, and directness.”

In 1864, a year before war’s end, the Southern churches reunited after 27 years of division. After the war, this body took the name Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), while the Northern church became the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

The Southern church had approximately 65,000 members and 1,300 churches, significantly smaller than the Northern church, which was about seven times larger. Despite its size, the PCUS became quite prominent in American religious life.

Northern Reunion and Its Consequences

In the North, Old School and New School churches remained separate throughout the war. Border state churches sympathetic to the South complicated Old School debates about slavery. After the war, many border churches left the Northern Old School to join the Southern Presbyterian Church, making Northern Old School members more amenable to union with the New School.

Charles Hodge strongly opposed this 1869 union, concerned about the New School’s lax confessional subscription and failure to repudiate Albert Barnes’ controversial views. Despite Hodge’s opposition, the New School voted unanimously for union, while only seven or eight Old School delegates opposed it.

The Gilded Age and Presbyterian Transformation

After 1869, two mainline Presbyterian churches existed: one Northern, one Southern. The Northern church would later split to form the OPC in 1936, while the Southern church would spawn the PCA in 1973.

Historians Darryl Hart and John Muether argue that after 1869, distinctively Presbyterian concerns became subordinate to broader American Protestant interests. The Civil War had “turned Presbyterian minds from their ecclesiastical differences to their common interest in the salvation of the Union.” This shift away from Presbyterian distinctives would contribute to issues leading to the OPC’s formation.

The post-war period brought massive changes. The South lay devastated: churches served as hospitals, ministers had died, congregations lost money invested in worthless Confederate currency. Meanwhile, the North entered the Gilded Age of economic prosperity lasting until the Great Depression.

Key developments included the transcontinental railroad’s completion (1869), Darwin’s “Descent of Man” (1871), the typewriter’s invention (1872), and Dwight Moody’s rise to prominence. Moody essentially created modern American evangelicalism, setting patterns that would influence Billy Graham and transform American religion.

Westward Expansion and Ecumenical Trends

The Northern church sent Sheldon Jackson west as superintendent for missions across Iowa, Nebraska, Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah. Following railroad expansion, he helped plant approximately 100 churches among what he called “the tidal wave of wickedness” and “cesspools of iniquity” of frontier towns.

Simultaneously, Presbyterians increasingly pursued interdenominational cooperation through organizations like the Evangelical Alliance and Presbyterian Alliance. These groups focused on combating perceived atheism, immorality, and Roman Catholicism, the latter a concern due to Irish and Italian immigration.

Robert Dabney prophetically warned against such ecumenical movements: “There is little difference between a pope in singular and a pope in the plural number.” He predicted that efforts to unite Presbyterians would extend to all Protestants, creating “that combination of loose, unfaithful, doctrinal, broad churchism with the tyrannical enforcement of outward union and uniformity, which now characterizes popery.”

Dabney’s prediction proved accurate. In the 1920s, attempts to unite all North American Protestant denominations under one church prompted J. Gresham Machen to write “Christianity and Liberalism” (1923), leading to the OPC’s formation in 1936.

Conclusion

The Civil War period fundamentally transformed American Presbyterianism. What began as theological divisions between Old School and New School evolved into regional conflicts that ultimately subordinated distinctively Presbyterian concerns to broader American Protestant and political interests. The South’s devastation and the North’s prosperity during the Gilded Age created vastly different contexts for church development.

Meanwhile, evolutionary theory, urbanization, westward expansion, and immigration posed new challenges that would test Presbyterian theological foundations in the coming decades. The ecumenical trends that emerged, while intended to strengthen Protestant influence, would eventually contribute to the theological controversies that fractured Presbyterianism in the twentieth century.

Understanding this period helps us see how external pressures and internal compromises can gradually erode denominational distinctives, a pattern that would repeat in the Presbyterian controversies leading to both the OPC’s formation in 1936 and the PCA’s emergence in 1973.

When the Presbytery of Philadelphia was established in 1706—the first Presbyterian body that would eventually become what we know today as the PCUSA—there were no Presbyterian congregations in North Carolina at all. The entire population of North Carolina at that time was only about 10,000 people. The colony was very small and largely uninhabited.

By the time First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh was established in 1816, North Carolina’s population had grown to half a million people, and there were 100 Presbyterian churches throughout the state. How did we go from no churches in the early 1700s to 100 churches by the early 19th century? That’s the story we’re going to explore today.

Early Colonial Settlement

You might recall that the first attempt at English settlement in North Carolina was Sir Walter Raleigh’s settlement on Roanoke Island in the late 1500s, which eventually became known as the Lost Colony when the colonists seemingly disappeared. Through the 1600s, not much happened in North Carolina for several reasons, chief among them being that the North Carolina coast was not particularly conducive to ships arriving. The coast really liked to eat ships, particularly around the Outer Banks, so Spanish settlers and others largely avoided the area.

By the mid-1600s, some settlers began coming down from Virginia into northeastern North Carolina, around what is now the Edenton area. There is a record that Francis Makemie—often called the father of American Presbyterianism—visited North Carolina in 1683 and 1684 and preached there, though we don’t know exactly where he went.

The only organized church in North Carolina during the 1600s was actually Quaker, not Anglican as you might expect. By 1711, an Anglican minister mentioned that he knew of Presbyterians in North Carolina, and noted that in 1705, Huguenots had settled in Bath, which was the first incorporated town in North Carolina. This was the same era when an Englishman named Edward Teach—better known as Blackbeard—was also visiting Bath.

Towns in colonial North Carolina were small. Often the courthouse was the most prominent building, and courthouses were frequently used for visiting preachers. Slaves began to be imported in this era for rice and tobacco plantations toward the coast.

Two Major Groups Bringing Presbyterianism

Two major groups brought Presbyterianism to North Carolina, each with their own distinctive culture and practices.

The Ulster Scots (Scots-Irish)

The first group is the Ulster Scots, or Scots-Irish. These were Scots who, in the 1600s, had moved to Northern Ireland to what was called the Ulster Colony. They didn’t go voluntarily but were moved there by an act of the king to weaken the desire for independence in Scotland. That independent spirit which developed in Northern Ireland then drove them west to America, and they came for religious reasons because of their fervent Presbyterian character.

The Scots-Irish began migrating to the colonies for several reasons: restrictions on selling goods to England, bad growing seasons, and the Test Act, which restricted the ability of Scots-Irish in Ulster to serve as civil and military leaders unless they were members of the Episcopal Church of Ireland. Before the American Revolution, around 200,000 Scots-Irish migrated from Ireland into the colonies.

Many of these settlers, though certainly not all and probably not even the majority, were Presbyterians of some variety. They often landed in Newcastle, Delaware, or Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. They were frequently very poor and set out toward the west and the frontier, which at that time was places like Lancaster, Pennsylvania—not even halfway across the state.

Due to conflicts over land with German immigrants and with Indians, many began to migrate south on what was called the Great Wagon Road. This road came from Lancaster down through the Shenandoah Valley, past Harrisonburg, Virginia, cut through a pass in the mountains outside Lynchburg, and then came down into North Carolina and South Carolina.

As early as the 1720s, the Scots-Irish began to enter North Carolina and settle in the Piedmont and central North Carolina, as well as the Midlands of South Carolina, particularly around Charlotte. Some early communities included the Hillsborough region in Orange County, down toward Salisbury, and around the Charlotte area.

Many of these families brought with them their Bibles, their Shorter Catechisms, and their Scottish metrical psalters that they would sing together. Before churches were established, small groups would gather to recite the catechism together, sing psalms, and read Scripture.

However, it’s important to realize that not all the colonists were religious. A historian estimated religious adherence in the different colonies in 1780, and North Carolina had the lowest rate of religious adherence at only 4 percent. Religious adherence in early colonial America was very, very low.

In general, you can think about the Scots-Irish as settling along what is now I-85 from Durham down to Charlotte. Interestingly, the towns that were prominent then—like Hillsborough and Salisbury—are not necessarily the towns that are prominent now.

The Scottish Highlanders

The second source of Scottish immigrants were the Highlanders from the hills in the north and west part of Scotland. As early as 1729, the Highlanders began to arrive, not in Philadelphia like the Scots-Irish, but at the port of Wilmington. They left Scotland for changing political structures, crop failures, new laws, and various conflicts.

Most Highlanders got on small rafts and boats and went up the Cape Fear River to the area around what is now Fayetteville, which at the time was called Cross Creek. They didn’t particularly stay in Wilmington, which would have been very small at this time. Many of the non-conforming settlers moved out to wilderness areas where they were allowed to practice their religion more freely.

A lot of the Highlanders spoke Gaelic, not English, and maybe some spoke English as well, but Gaelic would have been the language in the home. One historian noted that “the fact that most of the Highlanders spoke only Gaelic protected them from the nearby Baptist missionaries at Sandy Creek and kept them faithful to Presbyterian Calvinism during the many years when they were without the ministrations of a regular pastor.”

Their custom of family worship also kept their faith alive. Children learned the Catechism from their elders, and church officers examined them frequently. In every hearth, there was reverence for the forms of the Scottish Church. The whole family read the Bible aloud every day and repeated the Shorter Catechism.

The Highlanders appear to have been generally more wealthy than the Scots-Irish. They started buying slaves earlier, which is one indication of their greater wealth.

The earliest Presbyterian Church in North Carolina may have been Black River Presbyterian Church, founded by Highlanders from the Argyle region in Scotland around 1740. Black River Presbyterian Church is still a PCUSA congregation today, though it’s now a very small church with about eleven elderly members. The church building there now is from the 1800s, but it’s still a practicing church.

The Challenge of Finding Ministers

It’s hard to know exactly what the earliest churches in North Carolina because the records are haphazard, and it’s unclear what it meant to become a Presbyterian Church when people were meeting informally but weren’t formalized on the rolls of a presbytery. But somewhere around 1740, churches began to come into being.

The Presbyterians who began to gather in North Carolina didn’t have ministers or pastors serving them. Beginning in 1707, and for virtually every year throughout the century, the minutes of the Presbyterian Church contained petitions from congregations and presbyteries pleading for ministers. At least every other year, the Synod of Philadelphia and New York wrote to presbyteries in Scotland or Ireland, begging for ministers to come to the New World.

By the 1740s, there were 160 congregations. After the Revolution, there were about 215 mainline Presbyterian churches in the colonies with ministers and 204 without ministers. So nearly half of the churches still didn’t have ministers, and probably many of those with ministers shared them between multiple congregations.

Part of the challenge in Presbyterianism is that Presbyterians have always emphasized educated ministry. One early minister in North Carolina was examined in 1765 by his presbytery and was quizzed on ontology, pneumatics, ethics, rhetoric, natural philosophy, geography, and astronomy. That’s a high bar for finding a new minister.

There weren’t seminaries for the most part in this era. The first Presbyterian seminary in North America didn’t come until 1793. Ministers would have trained in schools and then been mentored by other ministers to get their training.

By the early 19th century, the mainline Presbyterian Church was quickly overtaken by Baptists, who had the advantage of not necessarily caring as much about educated ministry. Baptists were soon overtaken by Methodists, who had circuit riders able to serve many different churches. There were structural challenges created by Presbyterian commitments to educated ministry that hindered growth simply due to the lack of pastors.

Hugh McAden’s Missionary Journey

One of the most significant events in 18th-century North Carolina Presbyterianism was a missionary journey by a young minister named Hugh McAden in 1755. McAden had just finished his education and been licensed to preach, but he wasn’t yet ordained.

McAden was born in Pennsylvania in 1735 and attended what would become Princeton University. He finished when he was 18 in 1753. In 1755, he was licensed to preach by the New Side Presbytery, which was more on the revivalist side during the First Great Awakening.

Sent by his presbytery, he set off on horseback for a missionary journey to visit Scottish immigrants of all stripes in North and South Carolina. Fortunately, he left a thorough journal of his journey, though unfortunately, the original journal is lost. However, a historian named William Foote had access to the journal for his 1846 work and captured many quotes and content from it.

McAden left Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, headed down through the Shenandoah Valley, crossed through a pass in the mountains, and headed south toward the Danville, Virginia area. He crossed into Orange County, North Carolina, headed down the Great Wagon Road past Charlotte, crossed into South Carolina briefly, looped up through Fayetteville to Wilmington, cut through the middle of eastern North Carolina, back toward Orange County north of Durham, and then headed back north—all within about a year’s time.

As he traveled, he met different groups of Presbyterians, and they would introduce him to others. Someone would ride with him on horseback another twenty miles to meet another group. He would stop and preach, meet with people, and was recruited multiple times by churches trying to extend calls to him as their pastor. None of these churches had pastors at the time.

McAden was willing to preach to any group who would have him. He preached in homes, in the open air, in Baptist churches, and in courthouses—wherever he was able. He observed division among groups due to the influence of Baptist ministers who were starting to appear in the area. His highest compliment as he traveled was when he called a group “pretty regular Presbyterians.”

On his first Sunday in North Carolina, he wrote:

“Having now gotten within the limits prescribed me by the Presbytery, I was resolved not to be so anxious about getting along in my journey, but take some of my time to labor among the people, if so be the Lord might bless it to the advantage of any. May the Lord of his infinite mercy grant his blessing upon my poor attempts, and make me in some way instrumental in turning some of these precious souls from darkness into light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that the power may be known to be of God, and all glory redound to his own name.”

When he preached to some Highlanders in the Fayetteville area, he noted: “I preached to a number of Highlanders. Some of them scarcely knew one word that I said,” since they were Gaelic speakers. He also commented that they were “the poorest singers I ever heard in all my life.”

At one church, he experienced something many pastors would recognize: “I preached in the a.m. to a large and splendid audience, but was surprised when I came again in the p.m. to see about a dozen people met to hear me.”

The First Permanent Ministers

Before leaving North Carolina, McAden met with a minister named James Campbell, a Scotsman who spoke Gaelic. McAden convinced Campbell that he needed to go minister to the Highlanders who spoke Gaelic and needed a pastor. Campbell then ministered among the Highlanders in the Fayetteville area from 1756 to 1773, probably becoming the first permanent Presbyterian minister in North Carolina.

McAden himself later returned to North Carolina to minister in several places, largely along the Virginia border in Caswell County. He died in 1781 and is buried at Red House Church in Caswell County. A couple of weeks after his death, the British came through and destroyed many of his papers.

His son wrote this testimony sixty years after McAden’s death:

“My father was a very systematic man. He always spent one or two days every week in private study. If he walked into fields, he always carried his Bible with him. He visited with his elders once a year, all the families within the bounds of his congregations. He would exhort and pray with them during his stay. He collected all of his congregations once a year at his church and held an examination of those present. He administered the sacrament at each of his churches twice every year. He spent his life attempting to convince all of their sins and rendering happy those who were members of his congregations, respected and beloved by all who knew him.”

In 1765, three more ministers accepted calls in North Carolina: James Criswell in Granville County (the Oxford area), Henry Petillo in Orange County (the Hillsborough area), and David Caldwell in Alamance County (the Greensboro area). These four together were probably the first four Presbyterian ministers in North Carolina.

David Caldwell’s Influence

David Caldwell deserves special attention. He ministered to two congregations together for 52 years, one called Buffalo Presbyterian that still exists today. He opened a school often called “Caldwell’s Log College,” similar to the log college training young men for ministry in New Jersey. His school trained as many as five governors of North Carolina and 50 ministers who would serve in North Carolina.

Two interesting graduates were Barton Stone and James McGready. Barton Stone became a Presbyterian minister but then moved to Kentucky and became involved in what’s known as the Stone-Campbell movement or Restorationist movement, which today exists in the Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ. Stone was particularly involved in the Cane Ridge Revivals in Kentucky, which were part of the early days of the Second Great Awakening.

James McGready also went to Kentucky and became associated with the revival of 1800, where people started having physical reactions called “the jerks” during revival meetings. McGready became involved in forming the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, which was started partly due to pushback against the requirement for educated ministers on the frontier.

By 1770, the Orange Presbytery was formed with six ministers to serve this region.

Revolutionary Period and Beyond

There was significant Presbyterian involvement in events leading up to and during the American Revolution. Before the Revolution, there was something called the Regulator Movement, where rural North Carolinians pushed back against laws, taxes, and corrupt leadership. Interestingly, the Presbyterian ministers at the time were concerned about this rebellion and told the governor that Presbyterians involved were lacking faith, piety, and virtue. However, when the Revolution started, all four ministers became ardent patriots.

Some Highlanders ended up being strong loyalists during the Revolution, and some fled to places like Nova Scotia to escape the conflict.

The Establishment of Raleigh

Notice that we haven’t mentioned Raleigh in this story, and that’s because Raleigh didn’t exist before the Revolution. Raleigh came into being in the late 1700s when the state legislature was convinced to buy 1,000 acres from Joel Lane to form the new capital city.

In 1801, a school called the Raleigh Academy was formed. In 1810, they hired a 32-year-old Presbyterian minister named William McPheeters as headmaster. He probably started holding services in the old state house, which the government opened for groups that didn’t have church buildings yet.

In 1816, McPheeters became pastor of the newly established First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh, which still exists today. One of the initial four ruling elders was William Peace, the namesake of William Peace University in Raleigh, which was historically a Presbyterian college.

Conclusion

By the time of the Revolution, there were around 50 Presbyterian churches in North Carolina. First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh was about the 100th Presbyterian church established in the state.

This story encourages us to remember the faith of the saints who went before us. They were willing to persevere in a foreign land, even without ministers, holding fast to the faith through Scripture, singing, and their catechism. Their faithfulness laid the foundation for the Presbyterian witness that continues in North Carolina today, and we can follow in their faithful steps.

The growth from no Presbyterian churches in 1706 to 100 churches by 1816 represents not just numerical growth, but the faithful witness of ordinary believers who maintained their faith through family worship, catechism instruction, and gathering together whenever possible, even in the absence of ordained clergy. Their example reminds us that the church’s growth depends not just on structures and institutions, but on the faithful witness of believers committed to the means of grace.

We’re continuing our journey through Presbyterian history, picking up where we left off with the Old School-New School division of 1838 and diving into one of the most painful and complex chapters in our denominational story.

To set the stage, let me remind you where we were. By 1838, the Presbyterian Church had grown from about 20,000 members in 1800 to roughly 250,000 people. For context, that’s smaller than the Orthodox Presbyterian Church today, which has about 30,000 members. But remember, America’s population was quite a bit smaller then too.

The Growth of the Young Nation and Church

This was an era of explosive growth. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 had dramatically expanded American territory westward, and people were pushing into what we now call Tennessee, Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. The 1840s would bring the rest of the contiguous United States after the war with Mexico, along with the Pacific Northwest.

The church was growing rapidly during the Second Great Awakening, the age of Charles Finney and widespread revivals. It was also the era of seminary founding. Princeton Seminary was established around 1810-1812, followed by Union Seminary (now in Richmond), Auburn in New York (1818), Pittsburgh Seminary (originally Western Seminary), Columbia Seminary in South Carolina, Lane Seminary in Cincinnati, and many others.

This was also the age of missions, both domestic and foreign. As the nation moved west, there were huge efforts to plant churches and spread the gospel on the frontier. The Presbyterian Church sent its first missionaries to Liberia in the 1830s, a nation formed on the African coast where many hoped freed slaves could return and establish a Christian nation. Missionaries also went to India and what is now Pakistan.

In 1859, Ashbel Simonton went to Brazil and helped establish the first Presbyterian church there in 1862, followed by a presbytery in 1865. Brazil now has about seven hundred thousand Presbyterian members in a conservative denomination—more Presbyterians than we have in all of the United States combined.

The Two Schools After 1838

After the dramatic split of 1838, we had two mainline Presbyterian denominations. The New School, which had essentially been kicked out of the General Assembly, called themselves the Constitutional Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The Old School called itself the Reforming Assembly.

The New School Character

The New School was the more moderate group, less strict on confessional subscription, and generally more abolitionist, though there was diversity within both camps. They were concentrated more in the North than in the South.

It’s important to remember that while historians identify these two distinct parties, most people were probably right in the middle. The moderate New Schoolers and moderate Old Schoolers weren’t really all that different. Most ministers and people in the pews were largely centrist—a helpful thing to remember as churches can get polarized over controversy. There’s probably often much more unity than appears even within polarization.

The New School was more favorable to Charles Finney’s revival methods, though they also ended up being quite critical of Finney’s theology. It’s complicated—they were both more open to new measures but also critical of Finney’s essentially Pelagian rejection of Calvinism and his manipulative emotional techniques.

Interestingly, the New Schoolers took the Old School assembly to civil court in Pennsylvania and were actually declared the rightful heir of the denomination.

The Old School Response

Charles Hodge, who was young when the split happened but became a very prominent Old Schooler teaching at Princeton Seminary, wrote a lengthy “Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church” arguing that the Old School was right because they had history on their side. From 1822 to 1878, Hodge taught more Presbyterian students than any other seminary professor of the 19th century.

But the Old Schoolers weren’t of one mind either. Hodge had extensive debates with James Henley Thornwell, a Southern Presbyterian, over church polity issues like the role of ruling elders and whether churches should use boards versus commissions for mission work.

The Slavery Question Emerges

Presbyterians had debated slavery from the beginning. Samuel Davies in the 1700s didn’t argue for abolition but was committed to instructing slaves in the faith. John Witherspoon, prominent in the American Revolution and president of Princeton University, said it was “certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others and take away their liberty by no better right than superior power.”

After the Revolution, most Americans and most Presbyterians favored, at least in theory, gradual emancipation of slaves. They thought slavery wasn’t compatible with American freedom, but they didn’t want immediate abolition.

Early Church Positions

The 1818 General Assembly of the unified church declared slavery “a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature” and “a violation of the laws of God.” Yet they weren’t arguing for immediate abolition—they wanted some kind of ill-defined gradual emancipation.

At the same time, a Virginia minister named George Bourne wrote “The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable,” arguing that the Bible and slavery were incompatible. He went around harshly criticizing slave owners, saying slaveholding and church membership were incompatible. Because of his methods, his presbytery charged him with “unwarranted and unchristian” behavior and removed him from ministry. He became seen as a martyr of abolitionism.

The Polarization Intensifies

The 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion really polarized the movement. Nat Turner, a preacher and slave, led a rebellion that killed 50 or 60 white people. This entrenched both sides—abolitionists became more firm in their views, and those who thought the Bible permitted slavery also became more entrenched.

Two prominent Southerners, Robert Louis Dabney and James Henley Thornwell, became staunch defenders of slavery, even arguing that the Bible made slavery a positive good. Dabney, at 20 years old after the Nat Turner Rebellion, said the “unauthorized attempts to strike off the fetter of our slaves has but riveted them on faster.”

Thornwell argued in the 1850s: “The scriptures not only fail to condemn slavery, they distinctly sanction it as any other social condition of man. The relation was divinely regulated among the chosen people of God and the peculiar duties of parties are inculcated under the Christian economy.”

After the war, Dabney wrote “A Defense of Virginia and the South,” defending chattel slavery and arguing that “for the African race, such as Providence has made it, and where he has placed it in America, slavery was the righteous, the best, and yea, the only tolerable relation.”

The Complicated Picture

Yet this is a complicated story with faithful ministry on all sides. John Girardeau became pastor of Zion Presbyterian Church in Charleston, South Carolina in 1854. Starting with 30 people, mostly black, it grew to 1,500 people before the war—a predominantly black congregation pastored by a white minister. After the war, Girardeau was one of the first to ordain free black elders.

James Lyon in Mississippi worked to end mistreatment of slaves, brought proposals to his presbytery to advocate for blacks and whites worshiping together, and established catechism classes for slaves.

The Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church

The Old School championed what was called “the doctrine of the spirituality of the church.” This view held that the church is spiritual and should let civil and political affairs govern themselves—the church shouldn’t have an official say in political matters.

J. Gresham Machen, one of the founders of the OPC, later wrote about this doctrine: “You cannot expect from a true Christian church an official pronouncement upon the political and social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use of force… The function of the church in its corporate capacity is entirely different. Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal.”

In theory, this allowed Old Schoolers to have different views about slavery without bringing them into church courts. But critics have called them out for inconsistency—they seemed to apply this doctrine when it met their ends, sometimes including the perpetuation of slavery.

The Final Splits Leading to War

The divisions continued. In 1857, the New School Assembly split between North and South—the same year as the Dred Scott decision, which removed constitutional rights from free blacks. For context, the Baptists had already divided in 1845 (creating the Southern Baptist Church), and the Methodists divided the same year.

The Old Schoolers, North and South, stuck together longer. They had declared in 1845 that slaveholders would not be disciplined in the church, largely under the spirituality of the church logic.

But in May 1861, one month after shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the Old School General Assembly passed the Gardiner Spring Resolutions. These required all in the church to “do all in their power to promote and perpetuate the integrity of the United States and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the federal government.”

You can imagine this didn’t go over well with Southern Old Schoolers when South Carolina had already seceded and war had begun. Some protested, arguing that “the Bible does not enable any man to decide whether these United States are a nation or a voluntary confederacy of nations. The church has no voice in the decision on this question.”

Conclusion: From One Church to Four

On December 4, 1861, the Old School church in the South was established, believing it had been unconstitutionally removed from the broader Old School body through the Spring Resolutions. It held its first General Assembly in Augusta, Georgia, with 840 ministers and 72,000 members.

Interestingly, the First Presbyterian Church of Augusta was pastored by the father of an eight-year-old boy named Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who would later become President of the United States—one of eight Presbyterian presidents.

By the early 1860s, what had been one mainline Presbyterian church in the 1830s had become four: Old School and New School churches in both North and South. This painful division reflected the broader tensions tearing the nation apart, showing how even the church struggled with the enormous moral and political questions of the day.

The story reminds us that church history is messy, complicated, and filled with faithful people who sometimes reached very different conclusions about difficult issues. It challenges us to approach our own controversies with both conviction and humility, remembering that God’s people have always wrestled with how to faithfully apply Scripture to the challenges of their time.

Understanding the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) helps explain why we have sister Presbyterian churches today, all part of NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council), yet with distinct histories that kept us separate. It also illustrates how the Lord preserves His church through complicated, tangled histories involving sinful people and sometimes senseless splits.

The Geographic Context

Before diving into the history, geography matters enormously here. These Scottish-American churches concentrated heavily in specific regions: Western Pennsylvania was dense with both RPCNA and ARP congregations, with some scattered along the Hudson River in New York and Vermont. As people moved westward into Ohio, they settled predominantly in the southwestern part of the state and along the eastern border near Pennsylvania.

In the South, these churches established themselves in the Charlotte area of North Carolina and throughout South Carolina, extending into Georgia. Today, Mecklenburg County alone has about 30 ARP congregations, while Wake County has two. This geographic clustering reflects the migration patterns and community bonds of these tight-knit denominations.

The Covenanters: Roots of the RPCNA

The Reformed Presbyterians, also called Covenanters, trace their origins to 1640s Scotland when the entire nation signed the Solemn League and Covenant—a pledge to reform the churches of Scotland, England, and Ireland. While others quickly abandoned this covenant, the Covenanters held fast, even when it meant meeting in secret “societies” at the risk of persecution and death.

Beginning in 1662, they migrated to the American colonies, initially settling in Eastern Pennsylvania before spreading to South Carolina, New York, and Western Pennsylvania. By 1740, they had established their first known congregation near Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In 1774, on the brink of the American Revolution, four ministers from Scotland and Ireland constituted a Reformed Presbytery in North America.

The Great Division of 1782

The American Revolution created a crisis of conscience for the Covenanters. Many felt that forming a new nation released them from their covenant obligations to reform the churches of Britain. In 1782, the majority—about 600 people—joined with the Associate Presbytery (whom we’ll discuss shortly) to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod. They simply combined their names: “Associate” from one group, “Reformed” from the other.

However, a remnant believed this union required too many compromises. With support from ministers sent from Ireland and Scotland, they formed a new Reformed Presbytery in 1798. This illustrates a common pattern: when two denominations unite, you often end up with three—the merged body and the holdouts from each original group.

The holdouts maintained that because the U.S. Constitution made no reference to Christ’s lordship over the nation, America was illegitimate. Therefore, faithful Christians should dissent from political involvement. Until the 1960s, the RPCNA formally prohibited members from voting, holding office, or sometimes even serving in the military.

The Seceders: Origins of the ARP

The Associate Presbyterians, known as Seceders, began in Scotland in 1732 when the General Assembly prohibited churches from selecting their own ministers, giving that authority instead to wealthy landowners and civil leaders.

Ebenezer Erskine, whose name you’ve probably heard, opposed this decision and wanted his dissenting vote recorded—a common practice in church courts. When his request was refused due to rule changes, he preached against what he saw as the synod’s ungodly decision. The synod censured him for this sermon. Erskine appealed to the General Assembly, but they refused to let him read his formal protest.

In response, Erskine and three other ministers walked out and formed the Associate Synod in 1733. Nine years later, the first Associate Synod church was established in the American colonies near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. By the Revolution, they had 13 ministers in the colonies.

The Burgess Oath Controversy

The Associate Synod faced its own internal division in 1747 over the Burgess Oath—an oath required for local borough leaders in Scotland. Part of the oath read:

“Here I protest before God and your lordship that I profess and allow with my heart the true religion presently professed within this realm and authorized by laws thereof… renouncing the Roman religion called papistry.”

This sounds thoroughly Christian, right? The problem was the phrase “true religion.” The Associate Synod had left the Church of Scotland because they viewed it as corrupt. How could they swear to uphold Scotland’s “true religion” when they believed the established Church of Scotland was wrong?

The “Anti-Burgess” party refused to take this oath, while the “Burgess” party, including Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, were willing to take it. This created a 70-year division in Scotland, though it made little sense in the American colonies where no such oath existed.

One poignant story illustrates the personal cost: James, Ebenezer Erskine’s son-in-law, was in the Anti-Burgess party. When he returned from the synod meeting where they had excommunicated the Erskines, his wife (Ebenezer’s daughter) asked how it went. After a long pause, he replied, “We have excommunicated them.” She responded, “You have excommunicated my father and my uncle. You are my husband, but never more shall you be minister of mine.” For the rest of her life, she attended an Anti-Burgess church while he helped her onto her horse every Sunday to get there.

The Formation of the ARP (1782)

In 1782, about 1,500 Seceders and 600 Covenanters united to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Both groups considered themselves more faithful and strict than the emerging mainline Presbyterian church. They shared several distinctive practices:

• Closed communion: Only church members could partake of the Lord’s Supper
• Opposition to “occasional hearing”: Members shouldn’t worship in other denominations’ churches
• Exclusive psalm singing: They used only the 1650 Psalter, rejecting Isaac Watts’ psalm renditions that some mainline churches had adopted

The new ARP was organized into three presbyteries: one for central and western Pennsylvania, one for the Philadelphia area extending south to South Carolina, and one for New York reaching into Canada.

The Great Fragmentation (1802-1858)

By 1802, the ARP had grown to about 5,000 members divided into four regional synods: New York, Pennsylvania, the West (Ohio and Kentucky), and the South. This growth contained the seeds of future division.

The outlying synods resented traveling long distances to synod meetings and grew concerned about laxity in the New York presbytery. A prominent case involved John Mason, an influential ARP minister in New York City who founded the first ARP seminary in 1805.

Mason violated core ARP principles: he served communion to PCUSA members (breaking closed communion), preached occasionally in PCUSA churches, and led congregations in singing Isaac Watts’ hymns. When investigated, he gave a remarkable three-hour defense speech but ultimately wasn’t disciplined. He later joined the PCUSA and became a college president.

This controversy triggered a cascade of divisions:

• 1820: The Synod of the West withdrew from the denomination
• 1822: The Synod of the South followed suit
• 1825: The Pennsylvania Synod joined the PCUSA
• 1855: The Synod of the West rejoined the New York Synod
• 1858: This northern ARP united with the continuing Associate Synod to form the United Presbyterian Church

The Synod of the South continued as the ARP, eventually dropping “Synod of the South” to become simply the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church—the denomination we know today.

The United Presbyterian Church Legacy

The United Presbyterian Church (1858-1958) became a significant force in American Presbyterianism, especially in Pennsylvania. Notable figures included John Gerstner (R.C. Sproul’s mentor), Jay Adams (biblical counseling pioneer), and G.I. Williamson (author of study guides to the Westminster standards).

In 1958, the United Presbyterian Church joined the PCUSA, which is why you could find two enormous Presbyterian churches 0.2 miles apart in small towns like Grove City, Pennsylvania—one formerly United Presbyterian, the other mainline Presbyterian, both becoming PCUSA after the merger.

The Reformed Presbyterian Journey

Meanwhile, the Reformed Presbyterians who stayed out of the 1782 ARP merger faced their own complicated history. By 1798, about 1,000 people had gathered enough ministers from Ireland and Scotland to establish a new Reformed Presbytery. In 1809, they had grown sufficiently to form a synod.

Distinctive Characteristics

The RPs of this era were remarkable in several ways:

Premillennial Optimism: One prominent early minister believed the Antichrist’s reign began in the 1600s with the papacy and would end in 1866, ushering in Christ’s millennial reign. He predicted that by 1866, “all the nations would consistently understand, profess, and support the true religion.” This aggressive postmillennialism proved overly optimistic.

Opposition to Slavery: The RPs were among the few Bible-believing denominations that aggressively opposed slavery from the early 1800s. They prohibited slave owners from church membership. In 1802, minister Alexander McLeod published “Negro Slavery Unjustifiable,” arguing that Exodus 21:16’s prohibition of man-stealing made chattel slavery sinful.

This anti-slavery stance explains why so few RPCNA churches exist in the South—it was an extremely unpopular position. Many Southern RPs either joined other denominations to continue as slave owners or migrated to Ohio and Indiana, where RPCNA influence remains relatively strong today.

The Old Light/New Light Division (1833)

The RPs faced their own major split during the same period the mainline church was dividing over the Old School/New School controversy. The RP division, known as the Old Light/New Light controversy, centered on their principle of political dissent.

The War of 1812 created practical problems. Some RPs had never taken naturalization oaths to become American citizens because they objected to affirming what they saw as an ungodly constitution. As technically British citizens, they couldn’t serve in the American military and were told to move away from coastal areas.

Some RPs began taking modified oaths they believed made them citizens without affirming the Constitution, creating tensions. Questions arose about serving on juries and whether local governments could be righteous even under an unrighteous federal system.

At the 1833 synod, conflict erupted when the Old Lights essentially shouted down the former moderator, someone threatened to call the police, and the Old Light faction walked out to form their own synod.

Two Paths Forward

The New Lights (Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod) couldn’t join the mainline PCUSA because of disagreements about church-state relations. They considered joining various groups but objected that others didn’t consistently oppose slavery. Through the 1800s and into the 1900s, they gradually lost their distinctive identity—adding hymns and instruments, loosening Sabbath keeping and church discipline. By 1953, they had dwindled to 1,300 members. In 1965, they joined the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (not today’s EPC), eventually becoming part of the RPCES, which joined the PCA in 1982.

Interestingly, this means the modern PCA includes remnants of the Reformed Presbyterian Covenanter tradition dating back to 1600s Scotland.

The Old Lights maintained stricter political dissent and continued their aggressive opposition to slavery. During the Civil War, some met with Abraham Lincoln to request a constitutional amendment recognizing Christ’s kingship and to discuss slavery’s evils. They formed the National Reform Association, initially focused on this constitutional amendment but later expanding to broader social reform—fighting prostitution, gambling, pornography, and Sabbath-breaking.

In the late 1800s, they experienced another split when younger ministers joined the United Presbyterians. Around this time, one congregation ordained a female deacon without authority. The synod’s failure to discipline this action opened the door for female deacons, which the RPCNA still permits today.

The Modern Legacy

What emerged from these complex divisions are the denominations we know today:

The RPCNA gradually abandoned most of its distinctive practices through the 20th century—political dissent, restrictions on voting, and prohibitions on drinking and smoking. Today, their primary distinguishing feature is exclusive psalm singing, which ironically wasn’t their original main identity. As late as 1900, five different Presbyterian denominations were exclusively psalm-singing churches.

The ARP continues as a southern-based denomination about the size of the OPC, having spread across the United States and into Canada while maintaining its historic roots in the Carolinas.

Conclusion

This tangled history illustrates several important principles. First, division has been a constant reality in Presbyterian history, but so has unity—numerically, more groups have reunited than remained separate, though theological compromise often accompanied these mergers.

Second, faithful Christians can disagree on applications of biblical principles—like the nature of church-state relations or the proper response to slavery—while maintaining core doctrinal commitments.

Finally, God preserves His church through human failure, complicated histories, and even seemingly senseless divisions. The existence today of multiple Presbyterian denominations that maintain biblical fidelity and Reformed theology demonstrates that the Lord works through imperfect people and imperfect institutions to accomplish His purposes.

As we continue studying Presbyterian history, remember that the conflicts and divisions we see today aren’t new. They’re part of the ongoing story of how sinful people seek to be faithful to God’s Word in changing circumstances, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing, but always under the sovereignty of our gracious God who builds His church despite our weaknesses.

In reading The Centennial History First Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Rock Hill, South Carolina, I read a surprising paragraph about my ancestor’s passing.

By the time the 1911 addition was made, the church had become more relaxed in its attitude toward church art, and the memorial windows placed in the church at this time were intended to illustrate stories from the Bible, with human figures and representations of Christ. The “Good Shepherd Shepherd” window, depicting Christ leading a flock of sheep, was a memorial to Archibald Alexander Barron, and was given by his family.

The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that the Second Commandment forbids “the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever”. As early as 1911, the ARPs were loosening their commitment to this teaching.

Incidentally, the 1911 renovation also added an organ. While seen as a “traditional” church fixture today, this would have been a shock to the older ARPs who were committed to a capella singing in worship.

The only response that the PCUS leadership could offer was “experimental” worship as a way of connecting with young people. One such 1968 service offered at Montreat received a full review in the pages of Presbyterian Journal: electric guitars and folk music, especially Bob Dylan’s anthem “Blowin’ in the Wind,” a dialogue in place of the sermon that focused on social-gospel causes with no Bible references at all, and a lack of traditional liturgical structures.

The evening service was more of the same: a jazz trio, a movie that focused on race and poverty, a message that called for economic and political justice, a litany that focused on social sins, the Lord’s Supper accompanied by “We Shall Overcome,” and the service’s ending with “sacramental applause.”

On June 10, 2021, Mr. Matthew Ezzell interviewed my pastor Rev. David Okken about his 17 years on the mission field in Karamoja, Uganda with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The audio of the interview is available below.

You can also download mp3 file directly or search for “Ulster Worldly” in your podcast app of choice.

The text that best describes the ministry of Joe. B. Hopper in Korea is Romans 15:19–21:

I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel not where Christ has already been named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, for it is written: “They shall see who have never been told: they shall understand, who have never heard of him.”

I first met Joe in the fall of 1937 when I arrived from China at the Pyengyang Foreign School in North Korea and was introduced to my new room mate. Even in those high school days, Joe felt a clear call to be a missionary evangelist. Through four years at Davidson as his room mate and three decades in Korea as a colleague, I never knew that resolve to falter.

Joe made it his “ambition to preach the Gospel not where Christ had already been named.” Apart from his family this was his only ambition.

(1) Joe was a pioneer evangelist. His assignment was to plant churches in the rugged mountainous regions of North Chulla Province. This he did, not by sensational preach but by:

• the careful selection of places to start a new preaching point,
• the oversight of churches assigned to him by presbytery,
• regular systematic visitation,
• the baptism of new members,
• the appointment of deacons
• and the faithful preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments.

Pioneer Evangelism was a team effort. Joe and Dot together. Dot worked with the women. There was home visitation in the country villages, and visiting prisoners in the penitentiary and patients in the hospital. After the children were old enough to be on their own, Joe and Dot they traveled together to the more distant mountainous villages pulling a little house trailer behind their jeep.

A few days ago David Hopper and I went through Joes tiny study where his books and files were meticulously kept to see if we could find any record of the members he had received into the church. We found what we were looking for in a little black book. The record of the Korean war years was missing but beginning with 1952 and continuing through 1986, it was all there… the totals of each year were carefully recorded. The grand totals for the 34 years:

• 6,002 catechumens
• 3,192 adult baptisms
• 263 infant baptisms.

And you can be sure that each was done with careful instruction and examination.

(2) Joe was a great hunter of the elusive Korean pheasant. In fact some of us suspected that one reason why he was so attracted to his North Chulla field of service and why he enjoyed it so much was that here was some of the best pheasant hunting in Korea! Joe’s hunting exploits were legendary. Get his sons Barron and David to tell you about some of them. One of his tales was that when he was traveling by jeep between several churches for Sunday, services, scores of pheasants came out of the barley patches and rice paddies and lined up along the side of the road, making faces at him–knowing that Joe’s gun would have to remain silent on the sabbath day! Unfortunately, there was no one else present to verify the accuracy of the tale.

(3) Joe was sometimes known as the Bishop of North Chulla. It was a term used sometimes in jest, sometimes out of respect, sometimes in awe. It was an appropriate term which spoke of Joe’s leadership and long years of service. But a more accurate description of Joe’s role would be that of Presbyter. Joe was a pioneer but he was never a loner. Joe believed fervently in the Presbyterian system and he made it work. For Joe the Presbytery was central. It was the network that held together the churches that Joe began. The Presbytery brought order, continuity, and permanence into Joe system of church development. Joe served his presbytery often as trouble shooter, sometimes as a conscience or gadfly, and always as a servant. In times of division and schism, Joe worked tirelessly as peacemaker and reconciler. The crowning moment in the planting of a church was when the presbytery would ordain and install the pastor the congregation had chosen and Joe could turn his attention to the next promising preaching point.

How many churches did Joe start? I asked him that question two weeks ago after he had been admitted to the intensive Care Unit. “How many were they, Joe… a hundred?” His reply: “Probably not quite that many, but I did have my hand in starting quite a few.” My guess is that it was well over a hundred.

(4) Joe was a scholar. He was single-minded but not narrow-minded. He was a linguist. He was publisher and editor of the journal for country church workers named Pok Twen Malsum (“The Blessed Word”}. It was nothing fancy or erudite, but contained solid Bible studies and preaching aids for pastors, lay evangelists, and elders.

Joe was a scholar, but his scholarship existed not for its own sake but only for one purpose: “For he had made it his ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ had not been named.” Joe spoke the plain man’s English and the plain man’s Korean. And the common people heard him gladly.

(5) Joe had a pioneer’s suspicion of institutional structures. Some institutions, structures and committees were doing a great job–but let someone else worry with them…they were not Joe’s “cup of borie tsai (Korean barley tea)!” Some structures were necessary evils and simply had to be endured. Some committee work and structures Joe excelled in—but always the institution and its structures had to be kept at arms length. For too easily it could become a diversion or a distraction from his goal. And he had made it his “ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ had not been named.”

(6) Joe was a trainer of pastors. Through a carefully administered scholarship program, promising young men were sent to the Presbyterian Seminary in Seoul or the Ho Nam Seminary in Kwangju. He and, I think, his good friend R. K. Robinson worked out a plan for seminary interns after their graduation. Instead of having an assistant, to which he was entitled, he would choose a young man from the seminary each year who would be his co-worker for that year. At the end of the year the man would then move on to a pastorate and Joe would choose another candidate for the next year. In this way numerous seminary graduates received practical experience in country work and were introduced to Joe’s way of doing mission.

On several occasions Joe was asked to be a member of the Board of Trustees for the Ho Nam Seminary. He steadfastly refused, saying that as long as his brother-in-law was the president, he felt it inappropriate for another family member to become involved. But when the brother-in-law left the seminary for other assignments, Joe was elected to be chairman of the seminary board and was able to pilot the seminary through some difficult times–a relocation of the campus, a major building program, and the selection of a new president.

By the early 1980s the church situation in North Chulla had dramatically changed from the time when he had first arrived. Presbyterian churches in the province now numbered at least six hundred. The number had doubled and tripled. Well over two hundred pastors now served the churches of the province. I wonder if Joe didn’t begin to feel somewhat “penned in”, sharing the sentiments of the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Romans saying “since I no longer have any room for work in these regions”, he was thinking of striking out for Spain (Rom. 15:23-24).

So Joe and Dot began spending more and more time each year on the island of Cheju off the southern coast of Korea. The unevangelized islands were calling and Joe had made it his “ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ had not been named.”

During the last days waiting at the hospital, two verses scriptures came to mind. One was that magnificent passage where Jesus stands before the tomb of Lazarus. The other was Revelation 1:17-18:

Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the Living One; and I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

The Lord is the keeper of the keys! Its not fate, or chance, or good or bad luck. It’s not the machines in the Intensive Care Unit. The Lord holds the keys!

And sometimes he stands on this side of the tomb and cries with a loud voice “Lazarus, come forth!” And Death, humbled and obedient opens the gate, and Lazarus comes forth. And then the command:“Loose him and set him free!” And the grave clothes that had bound him fall away, and Lazarus is whole and free again.

And sometimes the Lord stands on the other side of the tomb. But he is still the keeper of the keys. And he cries with a loud voice “Joe, come on over. It;s better for you on this side.” And Death, humbled and obedient, opens at the gate, and Joe crosses over. And then the command “Loose him and set him free!” And tubes, the wires, the cables and the connections to the respirator fall away and Joe is whole and free again.

G. Thomson Brown
April 29, 1992

Audio file for Joe B. Hopper Memorial Service

A few years ago, I came across a pamphlet from 1979 at pcahistory.org that included the map below of how the PCA, OPC, and RPCES were geographically distributed at the time.

This geographically is inextricably linked to the history of these three denominations; it is interesting to consider how this distribution developed, and how it has evolved in the last 40 years.

Since Twitter tends to be ephimeral, I compiled a list of question I’ve asked over the last 3 years; most of them I still don’t have answers for.

• What are good sources on this history of church music in American presbyterianism?
• What was the first hymnal to include the Westminster Confession in the back?
• Who was the first PCUSA General Assembly moderator that wasn’t of Scottish descent?
• What seminary did the Associated Reformed Church have in 1796? (It was in NYC.)
• Is there demographic research on the ecclesiastical affiliations of Scots who migrated to Ulster in the 17th century?
• Does anyone know of a list of RPCES ministers who were received into the PCA?
• What was the relationship of Francis Makemie and the Church of Scotland?
• Can anyone recommend sources on the history of Canadian presbyterianism?
• Does anyone know anything about J. Gresham Machen’s study guide to Galatians?
• Is there a reliable source for membership numbers of American presbyterianism prior to 1925?
• What are good sources on the debates over Isaac Watts’ hymnal in presbyterian churches in the American South?
• Is there a good source on the history of the publication of the red Trinity Hymnal somewhere? .
• Is anyone aware of any historical research on early American churches meeting in brush arbors?
• Starting to put together a timeline of the theonomy movement from the 70s to 90s. What are the key events? And what are the best sources on this topic?`
• Are you aware of other historical (vs polemical) sources on the topic of political dessent in the RPCNA (beyond the RPCNA Synod Minutes)?
• I’m interested in the history of Presbyterianism in York County, SC. If anyone knows of good resources please pass them along.
• I’ve been trying to find biographical information on early Free Church of Scotland minister John G. Lorimer with 0 success. If anyone has any tips, please let me know.
• If anyone has ideas of how to get access to Machen’s articles from the PCUSA “The Presbyterian” magazine, I’m all ears.
• What is a good source on understanding the 17th century struggles over church government and worship in the Church of England? With answers!
• What was the relationship between the 17th-century Ulster presbyteries and the Church of Scotland?
• What are the best sources on they history of the Covenanter and Seceder churches in America?

Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths, D.D. read a three point statement:

1. In order to continue what we believe to be the true spiritual succession of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., which we hold to have been abandoned by the present organization of that body, and to make clear to all the world that we have no connection with the organization bearing that name, we, a company of ministers and ruling elders, having been removed from that organization in contravention (as we believe) of its constitution, or having severed our connection with that organization, or hereby solemnly declaring that we do sever our connection with it, or coming as ministers or ruling elders from other ecclesiastical bodies holding the Reformed Faith, do hereby associate ourselves together with all Christian people who do and will adhere to us, in a body to be known and styled as the Presbyterian Church of America.

2. We, a company of ministers and ruling elders, do hereby in our own name, in the name of those who have adhered to us, and by the warrant and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ constitute ourselves a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America.

3. We do solemnly declare (1) that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, (2) that the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms contain the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, and (3) that we subscribe to and maintain the principles of Presbyterian church government as being founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God.

Those the ministers, ruling elders, and laity who wished to affirm the first point were asked to stand and constitute a new church. The ministers and ruling elders who wished to constitute the first General Assembly by affirming the second section were asked to stand.

Thirty six ministers stood in affirmation of the first two sections; six men would be ordained by this assembly. Their names are recorded in the minutes of the first General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I have included names below along with some biographical information obtained from the A Ministerial and Congregational Register of the OPC, 1936–2016.

Several ministers who “signified their intention of joining the Presbyterian Church of America” were seated as associate members of the assembly:

• Charles Dana Chrisman, (New York City, N. Y.)
• Leslie A. Dunn (Columbus, N. J.)
• Lewis J. Grotcnhuis (Phillipsburg, N. J.)
• Robert S. Marsden (Middletown, Pa.)
• John C. Rankin, (Worcester, N. Y.)
• Cornelius Van Til (Philadelphia, Pa.)
• Robert L. Vining (Mifflinburg, Pa.)
• Peter F. Wall (Chester, N. Y.)
• Walter V. Watson (Syracuse, N. Y)

By the second General Assembly later in 1936, there were 106 ministers on the roll of the denomination.

I have previous written about James Barron the Scottish layman who assisted John Knox during the reformation of Scotland.

Knox first writes about his interaction with Barron family during his secret, brief return to Scotland (which he’d fled upon the rise of Catholic queen Mary Tudor) in 1555. In particular, Knox wrote of his ministry to James’ godly wife Elizabeth. He wrote:

Lodged in the house of that notable man of God, James Syme, [Knox] began to exhort secretly in that same house; and thereto repaired the Laird of Dun, David Forrest, and some certain personages of the town.

Amongst these was Elizabeth Adamson, spouse to James Barron, burgess of Edinburgh, who had a troubled conscience, and delighted much in the company of the said John, because he, according to the grace given unto him, opened more fully the fountain of God’s mercies, than did the common sort of teachers that she had heard before, for she had heard none but Friars. She did with much greediness drink of that fountain, and at her death she expressed the fruit of her hearing, to the great comfort of all those that repaired to her.

Albeit she suffered most grievous torment in her body, from her mouth there was heard nothing but praising of God, except that sometimes she would lament the troubles of those that were troubled by her. When her sisters asked what she thought of the pain which she then suffered in body, in comparison with that with which sometimes she had been troubled in spirit, she answered, “A thousand years of this torment, and ten times more joined unto it, is not to be compared to the quarter of an hour that I suffered in my spirit. I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, that He has delivered me from that most fearful pain; and welcome be this, even so long as it pleaseth His godly Majesty to discipline me therewith.”

A little before her departure, the said Elizabeth desired her sisters and some others that were beside her to sing a psalm. Amongst others, she appointed the Hundred and Third Psalm, beginning, “My soul, praise thou the Lord always.” This ended, she said, “At the teaching of this Psalm, my troubled soul first began effectually to taste of the mercy of God, which now to me is more sweet and precious than were all the kingdoms of the earth given to me to possess for a thousand years.”

The priests urged her with their ceremonies and superstitions, but to them she answered, “Depart from me, ye sergeants of Satan; for I have refused, and in your own presence do refuse, all your abominations. That which ye call your Sacrament and Christ’s body, as ye have deceived us to believe in times past, is nothing but an idol, and has nothing to do with the right institution of Jesus Christ. Therefore, in God’s name, I command you not to trouble me.” They departed, alleging that she raved, and wist not what she said.

Shortly thereafter she slept in the Lord Jesus, to the no small comfort of those that saw her blessed departing. We could not omit mention of this worthy woman, who gave so notable a confession before the great light of God’s Word did universally shine throughout this realm.

According to family lore, we are direct descendents of the Barrons. (My great-grandmother was a Barron of York County, SC.) This same Psalm 103 that gave my ancestor Elizabeth such grace at her death nearly 500 years ago was transformative in my own spiritual life when I memorized it during my junior year of college. “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits.”

(Quoted from Knox’s History Of The Reformation Of Religion, Within The Realm Of Scotland. Image from Elise Montgomery.)

The book includes a forward from Dr. C. Nick Willborn of Covenant PCA in Oak Ridge, TN:

​This little book also sets forth practical good the office can accomplish when rightly distinguished from the office of elder and fully honored through the recognition of and ordination of biblically qualified men. In this area, his work is reminiscent of Samuel Miller’s work on the eldership, especially in his chapter on the distinction between elders and deacons. Although the historical contexts in which Miller and Lorimer wrote are somewhat different, the astute reader will soon realize the abiding benefit this little book can be for the church today due to its historical and biblical faithfulness. With all this in mind, it is a worthy study for students, elders and deacons who love the church as Christ’s beloved bride and wish to serve her faithfully.

The report from the Committee on Publication and Sabbath Schools (p. 112) in the minutes of the 1919 General Assembly notes that 65% of Sabbath schools were closed for between three weeks and three months.

In the same meeting minutes, the Committee on Home Missions reports that

The last quarter of the year [1918] brought the influenza epidemic to such a universal prevalence that for most of the time our Sunday Schools and churches and day schools had to be closed, and all public assembling were forbidden by secular authorities. (p. 40)

Many of the home missionaries and workers served in “the nursing and caring for the helpless sick of the communities. … The communities where many of our missionaries are laboring owe the saving of many lives to their untiring efforts” (p. 40). In the Oklahoma mission area, “Four ministers, one white and three native, have fallen during the year. The three natives… were among the most active and consecrated pastors. Great numbers of the faithful elders and leaders among the devoted women fell victims to the scourge” (p. 98)

The report from the Synod of Georgia notes that the moderator postponed their stated meeting which “exceeded his authority….” The Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Records of the Synod of Georgia’s report declaims that “owing to the unusual emergency caused by the influenza epidemic prevailing over the whole country at that time, this violation of the letter of our Church law in this instance may be excused” (p. 39).

God have mercy on us all.

Machen [in 1926] opposed Presbyterian support for Prohibition, however, not because he approved of drunkenness or preferred unpopularity. Rather he did so for important theological–even Reformed–reasons. In a statement defending his position (never published again because of the damage his friends believed it would have done) Machen argued that the church had no legitimate rationale for taking a side in this political question. Aside from the question of the relations between church and state, he believed that the church was bound by the Word of God and so all of its declarations and resolutions had to have clear Scriptural warrant. The Bible did not, however, provide support for Prohibition. It taught the idea of temperance, that is, moderate consumption of alcohol and the other good things of God’s creation. This meant that Scripture forbade inebriation. But even here the Bible did not give directions to government officials for abolishing drunkenness. Should this be a matter for the federal government to regulate or should states and local governments? Was legislation the best way to shape public sentiment or was an educational program more effective? Was regulation of private citizens’ behavior even a proper concern of the state? The Bible did not answer these and various other questions. So, Machen concluded, the church had no business meddling in the politics of Prohibition or any other matter where Scripture did not speak.

Read the full article here.

Harts starts, “To claim that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church would not exist if not for a magazine is a bit of a stretch but has enough proximity to historical circumstances to be plausible.” He goes on to discuss The Presbyterian, Christianity Today, The Presbyterian, and New Horizons, each of which were used to inform “ordinary readers about the details and significance of the church struggle.”

Read the whole article for yourself.

My increasing acquaintance with Seminary students, coupled with my newspaper connections, made it natural for me to take an interest in, and write news reports about, the controversy in Presbyterianism (especially at the Seminary) between a very conservative and a more or less “liberal” theology. (I thought it a very mild variety of liberalism.) And so I got to know Dr. Machen personally. He was kind to me, polite and cooperative. I thought him a charming, vigorous, traditional but kindly man. I can remember only one somewhat biting comment he made: the reason “liberal Protestants” were so much concerned with ethics—to the exclusion of a deep theological interest—was that they had nothing much else to believe in!

Immediately after this period I decided to go ahead with my plan to enter the Episcopal Church ministry, and I planned to go to General Seminary in New York. Just then I had a visit, at my parents’ home, from Dr. Machen. How he discovered that I had these plans I do not know, but I was deeply moved when he appeared, asked to see me, and then sat and talked with me for a few minutes on our veranda. I recall especially, and have always been grateful for, his closing remark as he said farewell: “My best wishes to you, my young friend—and may you prosper!” His thoughtfulness made me understand why so many students in the Seminary adored him. I think that one may say that of all the faculty there at that time, J. Gresham Machen was the most loved and most influential, both with those who followed his conservative line and with those who disagreed with his position but loved the man—his generosity of spirit to students, his ready hospitality to them in his rooms in Alexander Hall, and his genuine and deep piety.

This reminds me of Pearl Buck’s memories of Machen’s courtesy.

Update (Feburary 21, 2024): Memories of Congo is now available as a Kindle ebook.

Beginning in 1707 and for virtually every year throughout the century, the minutes of the Presbyterian Church contain petitions from congregations and presbyteries pleading for ministers. At least every other year, the Synods of Philadelphia and New York wrote to presbyteries in Scotland or Ireland, begging for ministers to come to the New World. By 1740 there were 160 congregations; in 1761 the synod lamented: “The Church suffers greatly for want of a Opportunity to instruct Students in the Knowledge of Divinity.”

Between 1716 and 1766, some 200,000 Scotch-Irish immigrated, primarily from Ulster, with the majority settling in the Shenandoah Valley. The meeting of the first post-Revolutionary Presbyterian General Assembly, in 1789, counted 215 congregations with ministers and 204 without. Recognizing the shortage of ministers, the assembly called for each synod to recommend two members as missionaries to the frontier.

(From A Copious Fountain: A History of Union Presbyterian Seminary, 1812-2012 by William B. Sweetser Jr.)

It should be conceded, without fear of intelligent contradiction, that the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms are the finest creedal formulations of the Christian Faith that the church of Christ has yet produced. This is not to deny that in certain particulars some other creeds may surpass these Westminster standards, nor does it mean that these standards have attained such a degree of perfection that they could not possibly be improved. But it does mean that they are the most perfect creedal exhibitions that we possess of the truth revealed in Holy Scripture. Many people are familiar with the Confession and Catechisms and yet know very little regarding the history of the Assembly that produced these documents.

One of the most important Parliaments that ever existed in England was what is known as the Long Parliament. It continued from November 1640, until it was dissolved by Oliver Cromwell in April 1653. It was this Parliament that was responsible for the calling of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.

Shortly after the Long Parliament began its work, the House of Lords appointed a committee consisting of ten bishops and twenty lay peers to take into consideration all innovations in the church concerning religion. In the autumn and winter of 1641 there was prepared what is known as the Grand Remonstrance of the House of Commons. In this remonstrance the desire was expressed that there should be “a general Synod of the most grave, pious, learned and judicious divines of this island, assisted by some from foreign parts professing the same religion with us, to consider all things necessary for the peace and good government of the Church.”

In 1642 a declaration of the Parliament of England was sent to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This declaration contained a plea for the prevention of civil war. The answer of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland deplored the tardiness with which the reformation of religion progressed, and contended that religion is not only the means of the service of God and the saving of souls but also “the base and foundation of kingdomes and estates”. It also reiterated the plea “that in all his Majestie’s dominions there might be one Confession of Faith, one Directory of Worship, one publick Catechisme, and one form of Kirk Government”.

On April 19, 1642, the House of Commons ordered that the names of divines fit to be consulted with be presented to the House. In less than a week this list was completed. It consisted of two divines from each county in England, two from each university, two from the Channel Islands, one from each county in Wales, and four from the city of London.

On May 9th of this year the bill for the calling of an assembly of divines was brought in to the House of Commons. The House of Lords slightly amended the bill and fourteen names were added to the list of divines. By June 1st, the bill passed both Houses of Parliament. But the King’s assent was withheld. Two other bills met with the same fate. Both Houses then resorted to the method of Ordinance by their own authority. By June 12, 1643, this Ordinance for the calling of an assembly passed both Houses. As so much interest and importance attach to this Ordinance, part of it should be quoted here. It reads thus:

Whereas, amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is or can be more dear unto us than the purity of our religion; and for that, as yet, many things remain in the Liturgy, Discipline, and Government of the Church, which do necessarily require a further and more perfect reformation than as yet hath been attained; and whereas it hath been declared and resolved by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the present Church-government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, commissaries, deans, dean and chapters, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending upon the hierarchy, is evil, and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, a great impediment to reformation and growth of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government of this kingdom; and that therefore they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the Church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad; and, for the better effecting hereof, and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the Church of England from all false calumnies and aspersions, it is thought fit and necessary to call an Assembly of learned, godly, and judicious Divines, who, together with some members of both the Houses of Parliament, are to consult and advise of such matters and things, touching the premises, as shall be proposed unto them by both or either of the Houses of Parliament, and to give their advice and counsel therein to both or either of the said Houses, when, and as often as they shall be thereunto required.

Chapter XXIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with “the Civil Magistrate”. Section III of this chapter reads as follows:

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The last sentence of this section is the defense, on the part of the Westminster Assembly, of that Ordinance of the English Parliament of 1643 in accordance with which the Assembly convened on July 1st of that year. The Westminster Assembly was the creature of the Long Parliament.

The Westminster divines did not, of course, regard the authority of Parliament or of any civil magistrate as essential to the calling of an assembly such as the Westminster Assembly was. In Chapter XXXI, which deals with “Synods and Councils”, the divines also said:

As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies (Section II).

Nevertheless the Westminster Assembly was actually convened by Ordinance of Parliament.

The Assembly consisted of some one hundred and fifty members. Thirty were members of Parliament, the remainder divines, representing the chief parties of English Protestants except that of Archbishop Laud.

The Assembly was called to meet on July 1, 1643. Two days before the meeting a royal proclamation was issued prohibiting the meeting. Notwithstanding this royal interdict, sixty-nine of those appointed met. They convened in Westminster Abbey for divine service, and both Houses of Parliament adjourned for the purpose of attending the service of worship. Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Assembly, preached. After divine service the members of the Assembly met in the Chapel of Henry VII. The Assembly adjourned until July 6th.

Certain instructions for the conduct of the Assembly were framed by both Houses of Parliament in consultation with certain of the divines. As given by John Lightfoot, a member of the Assembly, these read as follows:

1. That two Assessors be joined to the Prolocutor, to supply his place in case of absence or infirmity.
2. That Scribes be appointed, to set down all proceedings, and those to be Divines, who are not of the Assembly, viz. Mr. Henry Robens and Mr. Adoniram Byfield.
3. Every member, at his first entry into the Assembly, shall make serious and solemn protestation, not to maintain any thing but what he believes to be truth in sincerity, when discovered unto him.
4. No resolution to be given upon any question the same day, wherein it is first propounded.
5. What any man undertakes to prove as necessary, he shall make good out of Scripture.
6. No man to proceed in any dispute, after the Prolocutor has enjoined him silence, unless the Assembly desire he may go on.
7. No man to be denied to enter his dissent from the Assembly, and his reasons for it, in any point, after it hath been first debated in the Assembly, and thence (if the dissenting party desire it) to be sent to the Houses of Parliament by the Assembly, not by any particular man or men, in a private way, when either House shall require.
8. All things agreed on and prepared for the Parliament, to be openly read and allowed in the Assembly, and then offered as the judgment of the Assembly, if the major part assent. Provided that the opinion of any persons dissenting, and the reasons urged for it, be annexed thereunto, if the dissenters require it, together with the solutions, if any were given to the Assembly, to these reasons.

When the Assembly met on July 8th, the following protestation was taken by every member, Lords and Commons, as well as divines:

I, A.B. do seriously and solemnly protest, in the presence of Almighty God, that in this Assembly, whereof I am a member, I will not maintain any thing in matters of doctrine, but what I think in my conscience to be truth; or in point of discipline, but what I shall conceive to conduce most to the glory of God, and the good and peace of his church.

This protestation, it should be noted, is of the nature of a solemn oath. It would be well for all to be animated by the spirit that evoked its composition and by the determination that the taking of it expresses.

In accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance quoted above, the Assembly was largely occupied for the first three months with the revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

One of the most interesting accounts we possess of the actual work of the Assembly is given us by Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Assembly. It gives us, from the pen of one admirably fitted to write, a sample of actual procedure in the sessions of the Assembly. Under date of December 7, 1643, Baillie writes:

On Monday morning we sent to both Houses of Parliament for a warrant for our sitting in the Assemblie. This was readilie granted, and by Mr. Hendersone presented to the Proloqutor; who sent out three of their number to convoy us to the Assemblie. Here no mortal man may enter to see or hear, let be to sitt, without ane order in wryte from both Houses of Parliament. When we were brought in, Dr. Twisse had ane long harangue for our welcome, after so long and hazardous a voyage by sea and land, in so unseasonable a tyme of the year. When he had ended, we satt doun in these places which since we have keeped. The like of that Assemblie I did never see, and, as we hear say, the like was never in England, nor any where is shortlie lyke to be. They did sit in Henry the 7th’s Chappell, in the place of the Convocation; but since the weather grew cold, they did go to Jerusalem chamber, a fair roome in the Abbey of Westminster, about the bounds of the College fore-hall, but wyder. At the one end nearest the doore, and both sydes are stages of seats as in the new Assemblie-House at Edinburgh, but not so high; for there will be roome but for five or six score. At the upmost end there is a chair set on ane frame, a foot from the earth, for the Mr. Proloqutor Dr. Twisse. Before it on the ground stands two chairs for the two Mr. Assessors, Dr. Burgess and Mr. Whyte. Before these two chairs, through the length of the roome, stands a table, at which sitts the two scribes, Mr. Byfield and Mr. Roborough. The house is all well hung, and hes a good fyre, which is some dainties at London. Foranent the table, upon the Proloqutor’s right hand, there are three or four rankes of formes. On the lowest we five doe sit. Upon the other, at our backs, the members of Parliament deputed to the Assemblie. On the formes foranent us, on the Proloqutor’s left hand, going from the upper end of the house to the chimney, and at the other end of the house, and backsyde of the table, till it come about to our seats, are four or five stages of fourmes, whereupon their divines sitts as they please; albeit commonlie they keep the same place. From the chimney to the door there is no seats, but a void for passage. The Lords of the Parliament uses to sit on chaires, in the void, about the fire. We meet every day of the week, but Saturday. We sitt commonlie from nine to one or two afternoon. The Proloqutor at the beginning and end hes a short prayer. The man, as the world knows, is very learned in the questions he has studied, and very good, beloved of all and highlie esteemed; but merelie bookish, and not much, as it seems, acquaint with conceived prayer, [and] among the unfittest of all the company for any action; so after the prayer he sitts mute. It was the canny convoyance of these who guides most matters for their own interest to plant such a man of purpose in the chaire. The one assessour, our good friend, Dr. Whyte, hes keeped in of the gout since our coming; the other, Dr. Burgess, a very active and sharpe man, supplies, so farr as is decent, the Proloqutor’s place. Ordinarlie there will be present above three-score of their divines. These are divided in three Committees; in one whereof every man is a member. No man is excluded who pleases to come to any of the three. Every Committee, as the Parliament gives order in wryte to take any purpose to consideration, takes a portion, and in their afternoon meeting prepares matters for the Assemblie, setts doune their minde in distinct propositions, backs their propositions with texts of Scripture. After the prayer, Mr. Byfield the scribe, reads the proposition and Scriptures, whereupon the Assemblie debates in a most grave and orderlie way. No man is called up to speak; bot who stands up of his own accord, he speaks so long as he will without interruption. If two or three stand up at once, then the divines confusedlie calls on his name whom they desyre to hear first: On whom the loudest and manifest voices calls, he speakes. No man speaks to any bot to the Proloqutor. They harangue long and very learnedlie. They studie the questions well before hand, and prepares their speeches; but withall the men are exceeding prompt, and well spoken. I doe marvell at the very accurate and extemporall replyes that many of them usuallie doe make. When, upon every proposition by itself, and on everie text of Scripture that is brought to confirme it, every man who will hes said his whole minde, and the replyes, and duplies, and triplies, are heard; then the most part calls, To the question. Byfield the scribe rises from the table, and comes to the Proloqutor’s chair, who, from the scribe’s book, reads the proposition, and says, as many as are in opinion that the question is well stated in the proposition, let them say I; when I is heard, he says, as many as think otherwise, say No. If the difference of I’s and No’s be cleare, as usuallie it is, then the question is ordered by the scribes, and they go on to debate the first Scripture alleadged for proof of the proposition. If the sound of I and No be near equall, then sayes the Proloqutor, as many as say I, stand up; while they stand, the scribe and others number them in their minde; when they sitt down, the No’s are bidden stand, and they likewise are numbered. This way is clear enough, and saves a great deal of time, which we spend in reading our catalogue. When a question is once ordered, there is no more debate of that matter; but if a man will vaige, he is quicklie taken up by Mr. Assessor, or many others, confusedlie crying, Speak to order, to order. No man contradicts another expresslie by name, bot most discreetlie speaks to the Proloqutor, and at most holds on the generall, The Reverend brother, who latelie or last spoke, on this hand, on that syde, above, or below. I thought meet once for all to give yow a taste of the outward form of their Assemblie. They follow the way of their Parliament. Much of their way is good, and worthie of our imitation: only their longsomenesse is wofull at this time, when their Church and Kingdome lyes under a most lamentable anarchy and confusion. They see the hurt of their being to establish a new Plattforme of worship and discipline to their Nation for all time to come, they think they cannot be answerable, if solidlie and at leisure, they doe not examine every point thereof.

In a memoir of Jane written by her grandson, he describes departure from Staunton, VA over the Appalachian mountains:

The families met, according to agreement, in Staunton, October 1st. All rode upon horses and upon others were placed the farming and cooking utensils, beds and bedding, wearing apparel, and provisions, and last, but not least the libraries, containing two Bibles, half a dozen Testaments, the Catechism, the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, and the Psalms of David. Each man and boy carried his rifle and ammunition, and each woman her pistol, for their long journey was mostly through a wilderness, and that infested by savages.

My ancestors followed the same journey (if not in the same party!). Major William Dunlap II (1743–1816) was also from Augusta County, VA and would die in Fayette County, KY. William II had son named William III (1779–1844) who had a daughter named Mary Jane (1814–1906) who married Joseph Hopper (1782–1860). Their son George Dunlap Hopper (1848–1913) is my great-great grandfather.

Here is his draft registration card from 1941:

Notably his “person who will always know your address” was Dr. C. Darby Fulton, Executive Secretary of Foreign Missions of the PCUS. Fulton, a missionary kid himself, had served as a missionary to Japan and preached at my grandfather’s baptism service on June 26, 1921. We would serve as the Executive Secretary from 1932 to 1961.

She earned her B.A. in English at Queens College and received her Master’s in Christian Education at the Presbyterian School for Christian Education in Richmond (formerly The Assembly’s Training School) with a thesis entitled “The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Second Generation Foreign Missionaries of the Presbyterian Church U.S.”

After graduation in 1943, she moved to Blackstone, Virginia (40 miles southwest of Richmond) to serve as Director of Christian Education at Blackstone Presbyterian Church, pastored by Rev. Thomas Fry. While church could not afford to pay her a salary, she was paid by the PCUS Defense Counsel due to its proximity to Fort Pickett where Army solders were trained for World War II; the church, according to my grandfather, “was doing all it could to minister to servicemen, and Dot was assisting in that program.”

Dot served at Blackstone church until March of 1945 when she returned to Richmond to prepare to return to Belgian Congo as a missionary. According to my grandfather, she was much loved by the Blackstone church and left “in a blaze of glory, and the church had given her a generous gift of money which she had used to buy luggage for her Congo venture.”

In Richmond, her friendship with my grandfather (soon to graduate from Union Theological Seminary) quickly turned to romance. Before the end of the semester, they were engaged to marry, and Dot decided to break her commitment to return to Congo with the PCUS Committee on Foreign Missions.

Soon after,

[Rev. Tom Fry] invited us to return to Blackstone for a Sunday morning service, at which he announced our engagement from the pulpit with a suitable explanation. The congregation (particularly all the old ladies) were highly pleased and immediately insisted that we be married in their church.

They were married at Blackstone on July 19, 1943. My grandfather recounts the wedding day:

Members of the Blackstone Church opened their homes to take in all the guests, besides making all the preparations for the wedding which normally would have been our responsibility. Decorating the church, putting on the rehearsal dinner and wedding reception, and all the other correct things were beautifully taken care of by the ladies in the church, and about all we had to do was to be present.

Tom Fry performed the ceremony on that warm summer evening. Because of Dot’s work in the church for two years, there were many of her local friends present as well as members of our immediate families. But because of the difficulties of travel in those wartime days there were no relatives or friends from other places, with the exception of several carloads of young people from the Tabb Street Church of Petersburg, about thirty miles away. They were the ones I had worked and played with while serving in their church a year or so before. Dot’s sister Alice was maid of honor, and Graham McChesney (a seminary classmate) was the best man. I am sure Tom performed his part properly, but about the only thing I now remember took place as we, the bride and groom, went out of the church by a side door. It was one of those swinging doors, and somehow hit me squarely in the face and nearly knocked me down.

My own preparations for the occasion had of necessity been meager. I had driven to Blackstone, and due to the wartime rationing system, had carefully saved up enough gas coupons to cover the trip. I had calculated the route and estimated mileage and gas consumption for the honeymoon but (as I realized later) had cut my budget a little too close (actually another matter of necessity). Aside from having paid in advance for a hotel room in nearby Farmville, I had fifty dollars cash in my wallet.

Suspecting the usual harassment of bridal couples, during the day of the wedding I parked the car in what I thought was a sufficiently hidden vacant lot somewhere in town and arranged for someone else to take us to it after the wedding reception. This was an underestimate of the abilities of the Tabb Street young people who somehow located it and when we reached our car it was appropriately covered with toothpaste and lipstick remarks designed to advertise to the world that Joe and Dot were now bride and groom!

The following appeared in a Richmond, VA newspaper and is recorded in my grandfather’s memoir:

The wedding of Miss Dorothy Longenecker and Mr. Joseph Barron Hopper took place Thursday, July 19 at 7:30 o’clock in the Presbyterian Church, Blackstone. The ceremony was performed by the bridegroom’s father, assisted by the Rev. Thomas A. Fry, pastor of the church.

The bride’s parents, the Rev. and Mrs. J. Hershey Longenecker, who were formerly of Mt. Joy, Pa., and St. Louis, Mo., respectively, are Presbyterian missionaries to the Belgian Congo, temporarily residing at Mission Court, this city. The Rev. Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Hopper, parents of the bridegroom, served as missionaries to Korea. Dr. Hopper is now pastor of the Royal Oak Presbyterian Church, Marion.

The bride, who was given in marriage by her father, wore a gown of white satin fashioned with a white marquisette yoke, fitted bodice and long tight sleeves. The full skirt ended in a wide circular train. Her fingertip veil of illusion fell from a Juliet cap of matching satin. She carried a shower bouquet of white gladioli and swainsona.

Miss Alice Longenecker, sister of the bride, was the maid of honor. She wore a dress of dusty blue marquisette, made with an eyelet embroidered bodice and elbow sleeves. She carried a bouquet of mixed flowers and wore a matching coronet in her hair.

Little Miss Gloria Jane Pritchett, of Blackstone, served as flower girl. She wore an old-fashioned dress of pale pink and carried a nosegay of summer flowers.

The bridegroom had as his best man, Mr. Graham McChesney of Asheville, North Carolina and Suffolk. The ushers were Apprentice Seaman George Hopper, of the University of Virginia, and Mr. James Longenecker.

After the ceremony, a reception was given by the ladies of the church. Following a short trip, Mr. and Mrs. Hopper will make their home at Callaway, where he is pastor of the Presbyterian Church.

A friend and I recently stopped by Blackstone Presbyterian Church (which continues as a congregation of the PCUSA) and happened to find a friend ruling elder in the office. He allowed me the take the pictures below of the sanctuary where Joe and Dot were married as well as the church roll showing Dot’s reception as a member in 1943.

The interview is split up into two parts, roughly consisting of his ministry in the United Kingdom in the first part and in the United States in the second part. I hope you enjoy hearing about how the Lord used this man for so many years. Press ️the ▶ buttons below to listen.

You can also download mp3 files for part 1 and part 2.

Transcript: Part 1

Irfon Hughes: My name is Irfon Hughes. I was born in Wales. But I’ve lived outside of Wales for well over 50 years, but I still speak my native language, the language of my parents, and my home, and my church. And I am privileged to be able to do so after such a length of time outside of the country.

Tim Hopper: Pastor Hughes, you recently, just at the end of the last year, stepped down from the session here at Shiloh Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, where you served for four and a half years, I believe.

Irfon Hughes: Virtually five, yeah.

Tim Hopper: Almost five years. You were my pastor previously from 2004 to 2008 at Hillcrest Presbyterian Church in America in Western Pennsylvania.

So I thought, as we start to talk about your life, a good look at the way your ministry worked out and the way the Lord used you was during some of that time in Western Pennsylvania.

You served the church’s College Fellowship Ministry. Can you tell us a little bit about that ministry and what shape it took?

Irfon Hughes: I came to Hillcrest Presbyterian Church in 1992, and I served there until 2008. During that time, the church was very small and we had very little impact outside of our own congregation.

But I had a daughter who was in Grove City College, and consequently I had two sons who went to Grove City College as well. And so I made some contacts through my daughter specifically.

And when I became the minister at Hillcrest, she made a point of coming out to worship. The church was 10 miles away, and she had to get a ride, and we didn’t live in Grove City then. She would have to get a ride and brought some friends with her.

And then, about three or four years into my ministry, I started going to the college to have lunch with students that Catrin had brought out to the church. She by then had graduated, and Owen was there, but Owen had no great interest in talking to his father at that time, bringing his friends. He was into basketball, although basketball wasn’t into him, as they say.

And gradually the students that we accrued started asking was it possible to come and meet in our house for conversation. And lots of students would be entertained for lunch, and they wanted to come back, and they showed interest in just being in a home atmosphere.

And in about… I don’t remember precisely, but let’s say about 1998, I decided, with my wife’s consent, to start a fellowship on a Sunday evening for college students.

And again, it was very small to begin with. I think the maximum ultimately we had was about a hundred students, and if the local fire marshal had known, he would have shut us down immediately. The only blessing we had was that all windows were at ground level and people could leap out if there was a fire.

Tim Hopper: Right into the snow.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, and so we decided to read. I was at a loss, really, how to interest and maintain an interest in and keep the attention of these students. And so I started reading to them and commenting to them on Puritan paperbacks that the Banner of Truth prints and publishes.

I can’t remember which one we started with. I was very enthusiastic about The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink, but it didn’t go really well. They weren’t terribly interested in that.

But then I picked up on Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices and that really… that really took off. The numbers increased. The students from other churches, from other backgrounds, started coming. We had Roman Catholics coming in.

And then I would speak in the house. They started at eight, so by the time we’d finished, it would be quarter past nine. And then after that, my wife would put out food, and of course students have no problems in eating food. And the food used to vanish.

The students then vanished, but some stayed on and talked and talked and wanted to know more and more. And it was a great opportunity. And my enthusiasm for the Puritans, which had begun way back—and I’ll say something about that in a moment—that enthusiasm seemed to be contagious. And they just loved to hear.

We had people, visiting preachers in our church, would come. Joel Beeke was there on one occasion, and he remains enthusiastic and impressed by the gathering there. And I remember Dr. Joe Pipa from Greenville. We had these college presidents, it was quite humbling, and they thought it was a great idea.

Tim Hopper: I remember Dr. Pipa said to you afterwards—he came for our winter conference in 2005; it was a very formative conference for me—that if we went to the General Assembly and said, “This British minister in his mid-60s is standing in his living room reading from the Puritans, and eighty college students are showing up,” no one would believe you.

Irfon Hughes: Joe and I are good friends, and we’ve been friends for 40, 50 years probably. I first met him at a Banner of Truth conference in the United Kingdom way back, I think it was about 1975, ‘76, something like that.

He and a fellow called David Jussely, who taught at RTS in Jackson, Mississippi, they came to visit somebody who came to the Banner conference, and they came as well.

And I’d been going to the Banner conference since about 1968. I was converted when I was about 15, and I was greatly influenced by the minister that I had at that time, a man called H.H. Williams.

Just a little anecdote: his name was Harry Harry Williams. Apparently, traditionally in North Wales, you give your first son the father’s name. Well, they gave him his first name, Harry, and his father’s name was Harry, so he was Harry Harry. And he was known as H.H.

And he had become, in about 1945, ‘46, a passionate evangelist. Something had happened in his life, and I don’t quite recall what it was, and he started preaching salvation according to the tradition of our Calvinistic Methodist denomination.

And he had a salutary effect on the church of which he was the minister at that time, Bethel, Cross Hands in Carmarthenshire. My father was from Cross Hands, but he never went to church as a boy.

Tim Hopper: Can we step back and talk about your earlier life, prior to when you were converted at 15?

Yeah, we’re coming to that.

Anyway, H.H. was called to our church. I was born in 1942, which makes me at this point 76.

I was brought up in a religious home, not a Christian Home per se. My parents went to church on occasion.

My grandmother seems to have been a Christian but, from a lack of teaching… she was born in 1880. Liberalism was creeping into the denomination, and she was influenced by the Revival of 1904-1905. She was widowed in 1911 with three children.

My grandfather seems to have been a Christian as well. But her demeanor and her desire that we would go to church with some regularity played a part in my life.

My brother contracted polio when he was two years of age, and my father always wanted a farm, and so we went to a farm. My mother knew nothing about farming but picked it up bit by bit.

And we lived in a very remote part of Wales, in central Wales, and we went to church in a place called Bethesda. We would go there occasionally. My parents were members, but it was occasional that we went there.

Tim Hopper: Was it a Welsh Calvinistic Methodist?

Irfon Hughes: Welsh Calvinistic Methodist, but Presbyterian. We went, paid very little attention. I was more interested in looking at the ceiling than I was at listening to the minister, and the minister probably was a liberal anyway, but that’s beside the point.

In 1952 or 1951, my grandmother died. And we lived in a very remote place, so my mother wanted to go back to where she was born and brought up, where there were relatives. And we bought a farm, and we went there.

And then we went to Bethel Presbyterian Church in Hirwaun, where my parents had been members—before, my mother particularly. And we went there. It’s amazing, really. My mother was not a Christian, my father was certainly not a Christian, and yet they’d been accepted as members in good standing. That tells you something about the state of the Presbyterian Church at that time.

And it was to that church that H.H. Williams came to be the minister, and that was about 1956. And I trace my conversion to 1957, when I came under a conviction of sin, which I didn’t understand, and I don’t think he did either, although he was an Evangelical.

And at that point, I felt that I should be a minister. Why me, particularly? I think my mother said—I heard her saying, “I wish everyone would become a minister”—but that’s scarcely a call to the ministry. But I felt an inward compulsion that I should be a minister.

And so I went to H.H. He knew I’d been converted, and I said, “I think I want to go in the ministry.” And so he set in motion at that point all the Presbyterian book of church order with regard to my being examined by the candidates’ board, which happened in Carmarthen in West Wales.

I remember going down with my father and my uncle—they took me down—and being examined about my Christian testimony, which was pathetic, I am sure. And I was there with two other men older than myself; I was 16. And one was a graduate of Oxford University. And one had played rugby for Wales, so… and he was 6'4". I’m talking to Tim here who is, I believe, 6'10", but he tells me 6'9".

Tim Hopper: My mom says 6 foot 10. That’s where you learn.

Irfon Hughes: His mom and I are on the same page. And he was a big man, Elwin Jones I think his name was, and he played rugby for Wales.

And when he stood before the committee and said he played rugby for Wales, there were no questions asked. Nobody argued.

Playing rugby in Wales is like a religion.

And the other fellow, Richard—I can’t remember his last name—but he was a very clever fellow.

And we were all accepted as students for the ministry.

Tim Hopper: This was while you were still a teenager?

Irfon Hughes: Sixteen.

Tim Hopper: Okay, so you’d just recently converted and effectively coming under…

Irfon Hughes: And that meant I was allowed to preach. And so on June 8, 1958, I preached my first sermon in Bethel, Hirwaun and in Jerusalem, Penderyn, which was a joint charge. It was from the text in Mark 10, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.”

I wrote a sermon. It was probably pathetic because H.H. took it, revised it, supplemented it, added to it, corrected it. And that was my first sermon. It wasn’t my sermon per se, but it was my text. That’s what I wanted to preach on.

And that’s been my text, I suppose, all along: that Christ Jesus, who was rejected by wicked men, was made the head of the church. And so that’s how my pilgrimage began.

I won prizes in school. And the first prize I won, I was told, “Pick a book.” And I went to H.H. and I said, “What book shall I pick?” And he said, “There’s this new publishing house started,” he said, “called The Banner of Truth. And they’ve got a reprint of a man called David Dickson. I know nothing about him,” he said, “but he’s got a commentary on the Psalms.”

I said, “I’ll get that.” So I told the school registrar, or whatever they were called in those days, and they got me this book for my prize. And it was a valued possession. My son who is in the ministry, Owen, he’s got that.

I was looking for it the other day and I thought, “What’s happened to my book on the Psalms, David Dickson?” And Owen… I said to Owen, “My library belongs to you.” He said, “I don’t want it. I don’t want your library.” He said, “I get all your books on my telephone. I just pick them out and they come up.”

But he said, “I’ll take some books that are precious to you.” So I said, “Well, you take your pick,” and he picked the Psalms.

But anyway, that was my first Banner book. And then because I was conscious of The Banner, whenever I got the opportunity to buy a Banner book—and there were not many in Wales—I didn’t go to Cardiff, the capital, to the bookshop there. I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t travel there; I didn’t have a car. I could have gone on the bus, but it would take hours, and I didn’t know it was there anyway.

But I saw on occasions… And then I can remember going… by now I was in university, I think. Yes, I was, in my first year. And there were some special preaching services over in a neighboring valley. And a fellow called Malcolm Evans was preaching there, and they had a bookstore.

And there was a book there, published by The Banner, called The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink. It revolutionized my life. It changed me from being a Christian to being a real Christian.

Now I understood sovereignty, what it meant: that God was in charge. And that remains a theme to me in my praying, in my speaking: the sovereignty of God. God rules everything.

And that book just changed my life. I still have that copy. I didn’t let Owen take that; it’s in my desk. And every so often I take it out and I see where I’ve underlined it. Just changed me.

I had a Bible, and I would put by the verses PD or SV. PD was predestination, SV was sovereignty. You go through the Bible and there every verse has got a line alongside it, a song to God.

And so that was my introduction to the Banner of Truth.

Well, when I was at University prior to that, in 1958, I went to an Evangelical Movement of Wales camp. And then met a whole slew of young people, many of whom were Christians. Some came to faith at the camp. And the following year, ‘58, my brother came and he was converted there.

But be that as it may, I met there people who really loved God and taught me what it meant to preach the gospel. And then all this was sealed by understanding things like divine sovereignty, the authority of the Bible, Bible truth.

And all those things are ingrained in me. I’m not an academic. I’m not a very clever fellow, and I say that not to elicit your sympathy—that’s just not so.

Tim Hopper: You didn’t hear that from me.

Irfon Hughes: No. Tim has been a very good corrective for any boasting people might make of me. I’m just a very ordinary Christian. And but these things just stir my soul when I read the scriptures—and I read the scriptures obviously every day.

When I read—I was reading just yesterday a prayer of Nehemiah. Oh, God is before his eyes. The majesty of God is before his eyes, the sovereignty of God is before his eyes, the power of God. God is wonderful. And I just… and these things just possessed me, as it were.

Well then, I met with Pentecostals, Pentecostals in the United Kingdom, the forerunners of the charismatic movement, but they’re a denomination of their own. And became desirous to have the baptism of the spirit without any teaching. I didn’t understand that I was baptized with the spirit. And I went through all those growing pains of being a Christian and developing as a Christian.

Well then, I’ve already been there before in my conversation: I went to University, studied Welsh and history, and Hebrew in my first year, and that proved to be very useful. I can still read my Hebrew Bible—I don’t always understand what I’m reading, but I can read my Hebrew Bible—and then my Greek New Testament.

But it was always a desire to preach Jesus Christ, that God’s remedy for sin.

Well, I went into the ministry. I went to a little Baptist church. During this time, I was expelled from my seminary along with three other men.

Tim Hopper: Can you fill in some details of how you got from University to the seminary, and then how you were expelled?

Irfon Hughes: Yeah. Well, let’s… I was in university. There I met many fine Christians, some of whom are quite well known now in America and in the United Kingdom for that matter. And one of them was a fellow called Jeff Thomas. He was a minister in Aberystwyth where my seminary was, but let’s back up a bit.

I was in university, and during that time I contracted diabetes. And I had been 220 pounds, and I lost 90 pounds, and obviously I was weak.

Mentally, physically… it was a great trial to my parents more than it was for me, really. It affected me, and so my stamina had gone, and studying was laborious to me.

And I passed half my exams, which they credited to me, but the other half I failed, and I had to re-sit those at a later date.

Well, the natural course of events was in the Presbyterian Church of Wales, you went to university—if you went to university at all—and then automatically you were accepted into their seminary or theological college in the town of Aberystwyth, where my friend, ultimately, Jeff Thomas, finished up as a minister.

Tim Hopper: Is that the sole seminary of the denomination?

Irfon Hughes: It was the sole graduating seminary. There were two minor preparatory schools, in Bala in North Wales and Trefeca in the southwest, but those were for men who didn’t go to university. And they just did higher college school courses and then were accepted. But it was a formal, purely automatic thing, and I was at seminary.

A theological college. And whilst there, I met men, and some of them had very radical views on the state of the Presbyterian Church of Wales, amongst whom was a man called Richard Holst.

Richard Holst and I became firm friends. We shared a study together. His… always a pile of books. He worked like a beaver. He was industrious.

He had been to university and got his degree in Hebrew and biblical studies, and he knew what he was doing, and I was sitting there like a potato. And but we shared the study, and we got on quite well.

And it’s been a very pleasant for me now, at the end of my life, to sit under the ministry of his son. Both of us here in Shiloh Presbyterian Church, and I love him very much. I love him as a son. He’s my friend’s son, and I’m more privileged than his father because I can sit under his ministry.

Tim Hopper: And his brother Jonathan is also a minister in our denomination.

Irfon Hughes: That’s right, that’s right. And then his brother Ben is a surgeon in Cardiff in Wales, in the Heath, University Hospital… or he’s an anesthesiologist—sorry, not a surgeon, an anesthesiologist.

Tim Hopper: So you and Richard are at the seminary of the Welsh Presbyterian Church.

Irfon Hughes: That’s right. There was an English wing, and Richard is English, English-speaking. And his wife, who he met when he was in seminary, she was at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, and she was there.

Whilst I was there, I was able to complete my degree, but by that time it was too late to go on to a graduate theological degree.

And then because we were expelled for asking the church to return to its confession of faith, and to be more evangelical and careful in its accepting students for the ministry, we were politely asked to leave. We were expelled, basically.

Tim Hopper: Did the denomination use the Westminster standards?

Irfon Hughes: They had a confession of faith which was based on the Westminster, but it was a Welsh Confession of Faith, and that being drawn up in 1811 by the fathers of the denomination. And it’s based on the Westminster, but there were some other parts to it.

A person couldn’t be accepted if they were shipwreckers, for example—that they went along the coast and dangled candles and suggested to ships that they would find a port, and they were only rocks, and then they would… you couldn’t be a member of the church if you did that.

But the Presbyterian Church of Wales has a… when it was a Calvinistic Methodist Church, which it changed in 1933 when it became the PCW. But it had a rich history of sound biblical preaching—men like John Elias, Howell Harris, Daniel Rowland.

This had been a powerful church, and great revivals of religion which affected the whole of Wales would happen. One of the most famous was in 1859, and that was probably the last orthodox revival under the ministry of a man called David Morgan.

He preached the length and breadth of Wales, and whenever he went to preach, crowds would come and people were affected. It was reckoned that public houses—which are bars—they were devastated because of the conversion of people. And men read their Bibles at the coal face when they were working underground. The effect was electric.

But then liberalism came in. And some of the great giants of the church—Thomas Charles Edwards and others—they’d been to Germany to study, and they’d been affected by the higher criticism. They came back and they wanted to be more reasonable in their faith.

In 1904, there was a revival, but that was very much a Pentecostal revival. Evan Roberts led that, and it was very emotional. He wouldn’t preach unless he was led, and all that subjectivism that came in with that.

Some men have defended it, amongst them Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but I don’t agree with the doctor on that issue. But that’s another story.

And so those are the kind of things that had affected our denomination.

Tim Hopper: So some modernism was already present in the 50s when you were converted.

Irfon Hughes: Every teacher at the theological college was affected by it. The only man that had some remnant of evangelical truths in his teaching and in his preaching was a man called Williams. His father had been converted, I think, in the 1904 Revival. He went back to what it once had been, our denomination, its character.

But he taught Philosophy, and he was the one who was most sympathetic. I can remember talking to him one day; we were walking along the prom, which is by the ocean.

He was telling me, “I understand your stand,” he said. “I know, I agree with you. The denomination is not doing well, and it’s just departed from these truths.”

And [unclear: portal was going blind], and I said to him as we’re walking along, “[unclear: Tilis?] is coming down”—he was a celebrity in Wales. And he said, “Well, when we get close to him, tell me that we’re close and then I can talk to him.”

So I said, “Ten yards away.” He ran out—Dr. Williams—just ten yards away, and he said, “Hello, [unclear: Ti?]!” and then they had a talk.

Anyway. That was at the college, at the seminary where we were, and he taught his philosophy of religion there.

But generally, the denomination had declined, and by now the church at the seminary has closed. Students go elsewhere, and very few come into the ministry.

The denomination is virtually obliterated. It’s tragic. It’s a tragic story.

Tim Hopper: And there wasn’t particularly any kind of continuing denomination?

Irfon Hughes: Such talk… even evangelicals, when we protested about this liberalism, even evangelicals said we were wrong. And if you should stay and transform the denomination from inside—it can’t be done. My experience is it can’t be done.

And when I hear men saying to me now in the PCUSA—you meet them occasionally—and they say, “Well, we’re working from the inside,” forget it. Politics will always beat spirituality.

Until God, of course, changes the whole dynamic, but it’s not God’s will at this time. Anyway, I’ve grown up through that.

Hate… I think that’s a stronger word than I would use, but I hate internal politics in denominations, and you see it in all of them. But that’s a whole other story.

That’s part of my experience: I don’t trust denominational politics because that ultimately will destroy the denomination.

If the OPC—and I don’t know the Orthodox Presbyterian Church terribly well, I’m a transplant from the Presbyterian Church in America—and there was internal politics there. It’s still there now.

And I could see dreaded tentacles spreading into every part of the denomination: women, ordaining women for the office of Deacon—they haven’t done it yet, but they’re just waiting for the chance to do it. Always an attempt to undermine scriptural principles, and many people are weak.

And evangelicals say they don’t want to destroy the denomination because [unclear: a thread of strong truths are still strong reformed men in the]… John Piper, whom we mentioned a moment ago, is very much in the forefront of that.

Still, denominational politics will ultimately, unless God changes it, win the day. And the same with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a bit slower because they’re more conscious of their history.

And the cost of founding the denomination for J. Gresham Machen and men like that. But sadly, if politics gets a hand, danger ensues.

Anyway.

Tim Hopper: I want to come back to this point where you and Richard Holst and the others were asked to leave seminary. But at what point in this did you meet Ann?

Irfon Hughes: Now, that is a great story. I’d met Ann before I went to seminary. We’d been at a party. Now, in Wales, young people would get together, and it was called a party.

Her sister and her sister’s best friend, Beryl Penny, organized this party in Beryl’s home. I was there, and I had taken another young lady with me. But that’s another story.

And Ann was working in the kitchen. She had insisted to her sister that she be allowed to go, and her sister had said, “You’re too young, you can’t go.” Her sister, by the way, sadly—not tragically, but sadly—died just a year ago from cancer, Christobel.

Be that as it may, she said, “No, you can’t come.” And Ann and her best friend, Val, said, “We want to work in the… we’ll work in the kitchen if we can come.” And they said, “Okay.”

In those days, no paper plates, nothing like that, so dishes had to be washed. And Ann and Val washed those things and then came into the general merriment.

And I saw this gorgeous girl with long black hair and wearing a blue sweater and a yellow skirt. And my heart was gone. And I found out her address.

In those days, you didn’t have telephones in homes. Her parents didn’t have a telephone, and my parents… no, they didn’t have a telephone. We didn’t have a telephone.

But I found her address, and when I got back to college, I wrote to her and asked her if she’d come out with me. And she said yes, she would.

And she came down to Cardiff on the train—I was in Cardiff then—and we had a wonderful afternoon and evening together. And then I took her home. The rest is history. It wasn’t without its initial bumps, but that was it.

Tim Hopper: So were you married when you were in seminary?

I finished seminary in 1967. Well, I was thrown out by then, and by then I had decided I was a Baptist, and I had accepted a call to a church in a neighboring valley to where Ann was from.

She’s from the Merthyr Valley; I’m from the neighboring valley going west, the Aberdare Valley. And I took a church in the Rhymney Valley, which was the neighboring valley to the Merthyr Valley.

By which time we had been in contact and dating for three years. And we got married on 22nd of July 1967, and then we moved into the manse, the church manse.

And that’s a story, but I’m not going to tell it.

Tim Hopper: A story that’s only tangential, but I just learned about from you fairly recently, was Ann’s family was from near where the Aberfan disaster happened. Can you tell that briefly, just because I think it’s an interesting part of Welsh history?

Irfon Hughes: In 1966, there was a great tragedy in Wales. Coal was extracted from underground and washed—strange to say that about something that was black, but they washed it—and there was always waste called small coal. And for a century and a half, the small coal had been tipped on the side of the mountains, and they were enormous mounds, massive mounds of coal.

Many of them you still see them; they’re covered with grass now. But these massive tips… well, there had been some heavy rain, and nobody had realized that under this huge amount of millions of tons of coal dust, there was a stream.

And the rain had come and undermined this thing, and it skidded, slipped down into a valley and killed… engulfed a school. And 147 children and teachers were suffocated and died there. It was a national tragedy.

A national tragedy. It occupied the TV stations for two or three weeks as searches were made to find bodies and to find any survivors, and there were none. It was an enormous event, and it happened in the Merthyr Valley, called Merthyr Vale. It inundated the village and Aberfan. It inundated Aberfan school and a part of the housing there.

I came down from Aberystwyth. I was preaching not far away from there, and I came down to Ann’s home. They wouldn’t let me into the valley—police stopped me. And in the end, I was able to convince a policeman that I was only going two streets into the town, and he let me in, and the whole place was electrified by this terrible tragedy that had happened.

Everything stopped. Everybody sat with bated breath to see if they could rescue anybody. It was a major, major disaster. I know nothing like it, I think, ever since. Maybe the Twin Towers was similar, and that, of course, captivated the whole nation.

Well, the whole nation was captivated by the Aberfan disaster. And that happened in 1966, and Ann and I were going to get married in 1967. I was down, she was home from college, and we were trapped there, really.

But that was fine. I was able to get around and in and out, and I can’t remember if I got out and went home because I didn’t live far away, or I stayed overnight in Ann’s home. I can’t remember. But that was a major event.

And I can remember preaching the Sunday after. And of course, you’d have to advert in your sermon to the disaster and try to make application of the suddenness of death and the need for repentance. And I can remember people being visibly moved by what I preached that Sunday. It was an interesting time.

Tim Hopper: 1966—speaking of that year, was that the year that you were called to this Baptist church that you led?

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, ‘66, ‘67, that happened. It was late spring because then I knew I was going to be expelled from the seminary, and I accepted this call.

Tim Hopper: Did you decide you were a Baptist because they weren’t modernists, or because—

Irfon Hughes: Basically, there were more evangelicals in the Baptist denomination. There was more emphasis on conversion, because they wouldn’t baptize you with immersion if there was no conversion. And I didn’t understand the Covenant; I didn’t understand it one bit.

My ignorance is to be blamed on myself and not to anyone else. It was… I was just ignorant.

And my best friend at that time was a fellow called Jeff Thomas, who was a minister in Aberystwyth. And we’d become close friends. He and his wife, whom I’d met in 1957, Iola, they gave me a home while I was finishing my degree at Aberystwyth University, and his influence on me was significant.

But at that time, I met Professor John Murray as well, so I just… And that was interesting. Professor Murray was very influential on one level.

I asked him one night—we was at a meeting, and he’d been preaching for Jeff at Alfred Place, Aberystwyth—and I asked Professor Murray, “How can I be reformed?”

And he said to me… He had only one eye, and people used to say—students used to say—it was the one that twinkled, but that’s when he looked at me, and I don’t know if it was a good eye or the bad eye. And he said, “Read Warfield. Now I’m going to my bed.” And that was it.

Tim Hopper: This is when he had retired back to Scotland?

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, he… yeah, I think he’d retired. And of course, he’d got married for the first and the only time. And I don’t know if Logan had been born then; that’s his eldest son. His, yeah, his only son. They had a little girl later called Annemarie, and she died the same year as her father. Father died in 1968, if my memory serves me correctly. So, yeah, I met Professor Murray.

Tim Hopper: You also had interactions with Dr. Lloyd-Jones through this time.

Irfon Hughes: Yes. I had. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had been a friend of a great-uncle of mine who was a minister, and when I heard him the first time in the Heath Church in Cardiff, I made myself known to him and told him who I was.

Tim Hopper: That’s in college?

Irfon Hughes: I was in university then, and I met him then. He was just an electrifying preacher, just amazing. Very quiet, very non-fuss. There were certain elements of enthusiasm as a sermon got going, but basically he would start with his familiar nasal tone: “Very well then… my text this morning, or this afternoon, is from Acts chapter 15…” and then he would go on like that.

And then he would just grip you, and the whole congregation was gripped with him as he preached.

He was a latter-day Puritan evangelist, because he was very Welsh, and he was very enthusiastic about the commencement and the revivals that begat the Calvinistic Methodist Church.

He became ultimately a Baptist, I believe, but his sacramental position was never clear. And people said, “Oh yes, he is a Baptist,” and others, “No, no, he’s a Congregationalist.”

So…

Tim Hopper: Had he retired from Westminster Chapel by this time? He didn’t retire in 1968, and this was in 1962 or ‘63. And he was, but he would still tour a couple of days a week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. He would go out to preach and then go home and prepare for the Lord’s Day. And it was fascinating.

But the two-volume biography by Iain Murray, there’s not much to beat that for the life of Lloyd-Jones. And nothing, in fact. There are critics of Lloyd-Jones and they write little books about him, but basically his… He lacked a clear ecclesiology, but that’s not—this is neither the time nor the place to talk about that anyway.

I met him then, and then I invited him to preach at the first church I was, I believe, a Baptist in Rhymney. And he came there, and the little building, it was seated about 800. And a typical Welsh church. Maybe you’ve got 100 in the congregation, you did fine.

The decline was in, but the place was packed to heaven. I couldn’t get out of the pulpit. I had introduced the service and read the scriptures and give out the hymns, and I couldn’t—there was no way for me to sit. I had to sit in the pulpit behind him.

And I remember him preaching, and he… they opened windows, and they really had to work hard. The windows had been painted in and somebody had to go and get a knife and cut around the painting in order to open the upper.

And I remember vividly—and you can say what you like, I remember it—the place was humid. Can imagine 800-plus people in this building on a March evening. And it hadn’t been a cold day.

I’d picked him up from the train station in Cardiff and brought him home, and we had lots of traffic. And I was afraid he wouldn’t get home to have something to eat, and he came in and said to my mom, “Don’t worry about it, it’ll be fine.”

And he… my aunt had made a little… things called pikelets and Welsh cakes. And he just loved them. He put lashings of butter and gallons of preserves on them and just ate them and loved it.

And anyway, Dr. Lloyd-Jones up there in the pulpit and he was preaching, and it was going very badly. He just couldn’t get going, as it were—and preachers know what I mean. And suddenly there was a breeze from one of these open windows. Suddenly he was alive. Just held us in the palm of his hand for the best part of an hour. It was just marvelous.

But there were lots of incidents involved with that, and which I’m not going to go into, but it was a great time. And then his son-in-law, I think… or maybe his… no, or his… His brother-in-law. Yes, E.J. Phillips was in the congregation and took him home to Cardiff, so I didn’t get his company then.

And then I’d asked—in order to get him to come to preach, you had to pay with a price of blood. And I’d asked him, I’d written to him and asked him if he would come to preach. And he said to me he couldn’t make any plans because he was very busy.

Well, soon afterwards he came to preach in a neighboring town where my wife was from and the church where my wife was brought up. Well, where she’d gone to when she was, at the compulsion of her sister who was a Christian. And Park Baptist.

And I went there to hear the Doctor, and the minister—Ann and I’d got married there in 1967—so when I came, the minister, Iorwerth Budge, said to me, “Come and start the service, Irfon.” So I said, “Okay.”

And I met the Doctor and we were sitting in the pulpit, and Iorwerth Budge introduced the speaker and gave out the first hymn, and then I read the scriptures. And then Iorwerth got up and gave out the second hymn, and I prayed. And I was granted great liberty in praying.

And afterwards, I sat down and the Doctor reached across to me and said, “When did you want me to come to preach?” And I said, “Oh, March.” So he said he would come. Yeah. So that was it.

And we were never friends, obviously. He was an infinitely greater man than I was—just a little pastor—but he always knew me and always was willing to talk to me. And I was very humbled by that. It was very nice.

Tim Hopper: Have you seen this Logic on Fire documentary?

Irfon Hughes: Yes, yes. And the men in it, most of whom I know. The Americans I don’t know, but I don’t know if the Americans understand him. But that’s not something to expound on.

Tim Hopper: I have a couple more questions about your ministry and life in Wales before we move on to your call to Sheffield. One thing we’ve just alluded to is that you grew up as a Welsh speaker. Is that what was predominantly spoken in your home?

Irfon Hughes: Yes. My parents always spoke English to each other for some reason. They met in England in 1938, and they always spoke English to each other, but they always spoke Welsh to my brother and I. My Welsh developed better than my brother’s.

My brother’s Welsh… he still speaks Welsh and he still understands Welsh. He’s never been as fluent as I am.

Anyway, he… we both spoke Welsh, and my parents, and then my grandmother when she was alive, she spoke Welsh to us. And we went to a Welsh-speaking church and read the Bible in Welsh in the church and understood the scriptures in Welsh.

And when we did do anything with English, it was the Authorized Version, the King James Version, which from which I can still quote. But I can’t quote from the ESV. Nothing is memorable in those. The Authorized Version is amazing; it’s an amazing translation. Every verse—it may not be accurate—but every verse has a word that you can hang on to and… And I still use it from time to time.

In fact, I was just thinking this morning that I need to look at some verses in the Psalms to memorize more of the verses in the Psalms, but I will use the Authorized Version for that. It’ll stick in my mind.

And then our culture… there was lots of Welsh in the culture, but it was an anglicized area. South Wales became anglicized quite early on. With mining and people coming in to work from Somerset and Cornwall and Gloucestershire, and so it became a very anglicized area.

Eastern Wales, Monmouthshire, where my first church was, that’s more anglicized than Glamorganshire at that time. But by now that’s crept west, and you’ve got to go as far as Carmarthenshire to hear Welsh spoken on the streets more, but less and less of that.

And further west, Pembrokeshire is very English—is called “Little England beyond Wales.” And Cardiganshire has more Welsh, or there was more Welsh.

And then North Wales, it was predominantly Welsh-speaking, but… and may still be, but I haven’t been in North Wales for 50 years and I couldn’t tell you. But they speak Welsh with a more nasal accent—they talk like that, and they speak Welsh like that, and their Welsh is like that. But I had some good friends who were North Walians and not so good friends who were North Walians.

Tim Hopper: Well, I think a related question that I would be remiss not to ask is how you ended up with a name like Irfon.

Irfon Hughes: Irfon is a Welsh name. My father’s best friend in school was called Irfon, and so when I was born I was given my grandfather’s name, Richard; my father’s best friend’s name, Irfon; my mother’s patronymic, Parry; and then my father’s name, Hughes. So I’m R.I.P. Hughes.

When I was baptized, the minister who baptized me, Dai Davis—who was probably an old-school Evangelical but had been influenced by the liberalism that come in, he was a man of a sense of humor—and when he baptized me, he added the name David.

So I became David Richard Irfon Parry… D.R.I.P..

So I say this, and I know that others are going to hear it, but I’m telling you, that was my baptismal name. But I’ve never used David because it’s not my official name.

But R.I.P. is bad enough, and… so that’s…

Tim Hopper: Thankfully you didn’t end up with Irvine Irfon Hughes.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, but I couldn’t do that because my father was Ieuan, and I could, of course, have been Ieuan Hughes. But I was never Evan Morgan at all, and that’s a blessing. But I’m quite proud of my Welsh name.

Tim Hopper: You don’t begrudge your parents for seventy-six years of mispronunciation from…?

Irfon Hughes: No, no, no. I can live with it. I can live with it. They loved me, and I can live with it.

They didn’t name me like that… well, they never expected me to live outside Wales and they fully expected me to marry a Welsh-speaking wife.

They thought that I would be some kind of ordinary person, and they never expected me to be a minister.

It’s only as I grew older, I certainly had the gift of the gab and I could talk a lot.

Someone said once I’d been vaccinated with a gramophone needle. But that would be lost on most people, because they would not know what a gramophone needle was.

Tim Hopper: One other topic I wanted to come back to before we take a break was, in university you studied history, which I know has been a love for you ever since. Was it something you had enjoyed even prior to that point?

Irfon Hughes: I’ve always liked history. The love of history was imbued in me by a teacher called Mrs. Webbley. Anyway, she said to me… good at remembering dates. And that was it, and history became a passion. I love history. I buy history books. I love history. I’ve grown to love other things too, but history is a delight. And Welsh as a language is a delight as well.

Transcript: Part 2

Tim Hopper: In 1967 you were called to this Baptist Church. Did you serve there until you were called to the north of England?

Irfon Hughes: No. I was at this church until 1971, and I resigned. The church, to my disappointment, was not even Evangelical and certainly not Evangelical in its mode of operation. And they really made things difficult.

One deacon—because they don’t have elders—one deacon, an old man whose father had been the minister there back in the 30s, Harold… Harold once spat on me because I insisted people need to be born again, and he just was so angry. He didn’t hear much. He had a hearing aid, and when he wanted to hear something, he’d hold his hearing aid up, [unclear], and when he didn’t bother, he would put it in his pocket.

I would give out the announcements and he’d be listening, and then he’d put it in his pocket and he wouldn’t listen after that. And I had that for a period of time. Another man likewise.

There was a woman in the church who was a member, and she never came. And she had a very lurid moral history. And I said, “Well, she gave the most money.” The list appeared every year, how much money, and she gave the most—not much by modern-day standards, but it was the most. And I said that this woman ought to be excommunicated, both for her moral background and for her lack of attendance.

And that really set the cat among the pigeons, if I was going to exclude people who gave so much money—and it was 20 pounds, it was nothing, it wasn’t even 10 shillings a week. If I would exclude that, who else could I exclude? And this went on; it was a battle. And in the end, I realized that it was a losing battle.

And because of my diabetes, that affects my health if I’m in a struggle, I decided that I would resign. And of course, they were very sorry I was resigning, and it reflected badly on them. In the village, people would say things about them, and so they were willing to have me, but I had to stay on their terms. And I said no, and that was it.

And so I resigned, and I was out of the ministry for… About… I went back in in 1973, and I resigned at the end of ‘71, so about 18 months I was out of the ministry. And then I received this call to an independent Calvinistic church in Sheffield in the north of England, Wickliffe Chapel, now known as Wickliffe Church, and flourishing.

I was followed by a man called John [Waite?] who was a professor at the [unclear] Bible College. And they were closing their college, and they called John, and John went there and ministered well.

And he was followed by a man called… Oh, his name escapes me. I remember meeting him, and he came from Wales, and he was a lawyer by training, because Evangelical seminaries are very rare in the United Kingdom. There’s one, the London Theological Seminary, LTS, but I don’t know of any others.

And this fellow, who was a lawyer from Wales and had been called to the ministry and had exercised the ministry in Wales, he came, and he was pretty incisive. And there was one man in that church… He made life very difficult.

And I stayed there for 12 years, and they were—nine of the hardest years of my life. They were hard years; he was a difficult man.

I wrote to him recently, I emailed him recently. Because of him, I came to America. I received a call to a church in America, and I wouldn’t have come. I wouldn’t have ventured, I wouldn’t have thought of it. But I couldn’t stay where I was and was convinced that it would kill me. My health was in a steep decline.

So I accepted this call to the ministry. So I wrote to him; I sent him an email. I got his address from his son and I sent him an email, and I’ve never heard back from him. But I thanked him for having persuaded me that I needed to find fresh pastures.

He stayed in the church and tried to run things, but this lawyer guy, he was fit to deal with him—clever enough and quick-minded enough, and I wasn’t. And I liked him, I had liked him, but he made life very difficult.

Tim Hopper: So your ministry: you are converted as a teenager and quickly have this sense of call to the ministry, and then attend university, and then you attend a seminary that’s a challenging experience and a liberal seminary. And then you have this difficult ministry for several years in this Baptist church, and then you go to Sheffield and have a difficult ministry there. Did you consider leaving the ministry through those years?

Irfon Hughes: Yes, I did at one point. This man had five children. And one of the children, who was a teenager, 15, 16, 17 years of age… one Sunday after I’d preached, I was always the last to leave.

The treasurer, who was a deacon, George Taylor—who ultimately is responsible for me being a paedobaptist, an infant Baptist—George was an avid, ardent reformed man. And George and I were always the last to leave the church, and he drove me home or I drove him home, it depended which one of us had a car. And this young man was hanging around.

And I said, “So what’s going on?” and he was going through some really difficult spiritual battles. And I spent an hour with him, an hour and a half maybe. He was at home alone; his father and mother had gone away.

We had a deacons’ meeting—or the church officers’ meeting, the elders and deacons met together—the following evening. And after the meeting was over, his father, Derek, said, “Could I have a word with you privately?” I said, “Sure,” wondering what was going to fall on my head.

And he said, “You are never to talk to my children about spiritual issues ever again. None of them. You are not to touch them, not to talk to them, not to instruct them.”

Well, it just broke my heart. It just broke my heart. And I went home and told Anne.

And then two days later, two of the younger church members—one a medical student, and one was ultimately an elder… They—Mike Silas and, what’s his name… he’ll come back to me anyway. Steve Ward. And they came to see me.

I said to Steve—I’d played squash with Steve on the Tuesday morning—and I’d said I was very upset by what he had said to me. And so he and Mike Silas, who was the doctor—he was a doctor by then—came to see me and they said, “What’s happened?” They sat down and they were incensed. They were incensed. And they were prepared to bring charges against him in the church.

I said, “No, no. Let’s preserve the peace here. Let’s do that.”

Anyway, soon afterwards I became very ill. I had a medical condition, and I was sick. I was a real sick man. And for six weeks until I had surgery—I had surgery at the end of the year, but this was in the fall—the sun never rose, as far as I was concerned.

I’d walk every day and it was dark. When people talk about depression, I know exactly what they’re talking about. It was dark. It was dark. I remember it vividly.

And then I had my gallbladder removed, and things got better. But by this time, this had happened and all this… I knew I couldn’t carry on. This was more than I could handle, and so soon after, things were set in motion and I came to America. But that was a hard time.

But… well, no, I’m not going to talk about subsequent… I’d been to America in 1981. I’d been to Canada. I’d been to preach—I’d been invited to preach for a minister, a PCA minister, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

And I came over and I spent three weeks, I think, preaching in New Brunswick, in… yeah, in New Brunswick, in… oh, I can’t remember the other province… and then in Nova Scotia. And had a very good time there and made some good friends.

One of the men that I stayed with, David Katherine, who has now gone to glory—he and his dear wife have gone to glory in the last three or four years—he had given my name to a church, a Congregational Church in Massachusetts, Emmanuel Chapel. And they contacted me and asked for tapes. I didn’t have CDs in those days; it had tapes.

So I sent them some tapes. And I must have sent the tapes on Monday. They were on the phone to me on Friday: “We’ve heard your tapes. You’re just the man we want.” “Will you come to be our minister?”

Well, I thrashed about for a couple of months. Do you take your family—five children, a wife, myself—and go to America? Sell up everything?

And it was so bad. I had an elder, a lovely fellow called Clive Pete, who was a doctor. And I saw Clive on a Friday. He was going on vacation on the Saturday, and he said, “Are you going to go?” And I said, “No, I’m not going to go. I can’t risk it. I can’t go. I wanted to get rid of Derek, I want to get away from Derek, but… I wasn’t going to go.”

And then by the Saturday, I changed my mind. It was… it was by the hour. I’d tell somebody at breakfast I’m not going, and by lunchtime I was going. It was so difficult.

And then on the Saturday, I talked to my friend Jeff Thomas, who is a minister in Aberystwyth, where Clive and Janet were going on vacation. On the Sunday morning, they were walking out of the church and they talked to Jeff at the door. And Jeff said, “So, Irfon is going to America then?” And Clive said, “No, he’s not. He told me he wasn’t going.”

Anyway, I decided to come to America, and I came to America in 1983.

Tim Hopper: So when you went to Sheffield, did that church baptize infants?

Irfon Hughes: It baptized both, by-law. There, I became a paedobaptist. I told the elders that I had.

This man Derek—against whom I hold no malice—said, “Well, we have to consider whether you can stay as a minister.” And someone said, “Well, we have Baptists in the eldership as well.”

This man, Clive Pete, was a Baptist. And so the church was congregational.

It had taken the Savoy Declaration, and there’s a clause there that says children must be baptized. And it was changed from “must” to “may.” So you could baptize children, infants, and you could do credobaptism.

And I don’t think I ever did paedo, but maybe I did to some Chinese students who were converted, but they weren’t immersed; they were sprinkled.

And then I baptized… maybe I didn’t baptize… but certainly one of my children, Gareth, was baptized by a friend called John Le, who had a great influence on me. And he was preaching for us at a conference, the spring and fall conference. He was preaching there, and Gareth was born in April, and this was in May, and he baptized Gareth.

I don’t know who baptized Rowan, I can’t remember.

But anyway, Catrin was baptized by paedobaptism, but she was… she was a believer when she was ever so young, ever so young. So anyway…

Tim Hopper: So by the time you received this call to Massachusetts, you were a convinced paedobaptist, and that was a paedobaptist church?

Irfon Hughes: No, that was a congregational paedobaptist church.

Tim Hopper: Which is now an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It’s now an Orthodox Presbyterian.

Irfon Hughes: That’s correct. It always should have been Presbyterian, and it always should have been OP, because that was its character. Sure.

And when I went into the PCA, I knew I couldn’t stay there because they would never go into the PCA because it was too loosey-goosey for them.

And they were strict and strong, and it was planted by a man called Norman Brower, who was himself a strong man.

But he never… he went into one of the Dutch denominations eventually, but he planted a couple of congregational churches, one of which has collapsed and one which continues, Emmanuel, to this day.

Tim Hopper: When you were in Sheffield in the ’70s, were you aware of the conservative Presbyterian American scene? The PCA was forming during that time. Was that on your radar?

Irfon Hughes: The PCA was formed in 1982, I think.

Tim Hopper: ’73.

Irfon Hughes: ’73, right. Well, I came to America in 1992, so… ’92. But yeah, right, sorry. I went to Hillcrest.

Yes, I was aware of it. The Banner of Truth magazine would publish something by David [Duncey?], who was OP or PCA.

And I got to know some men, and they were PCA. But I came to this country and I never expected to go into the PCA. I would have liked to. But I never expected it.

And when I got to know the PCA more, then I was more attracted to it.

But Emmanuel was never going to go into a Presbyterian Church. It was too… Norm was a committed congregationalist. Most of the people there had been converted into his ministry or come to the church under his ministry, and they were committed as well.

And it was never going to happen in my time. In my successor’s time, it didn’t happen. And then my further successor—two successors—it would never have happened with them.

But then the third man to follow me…

Tim Hopper: Mark… Mark Marquis…

Irfon Hughes: Mark Mair, he came and was congregational, and he brought it into the OPC. One of the elders, a young man who was the most gifted young man, [Jason Pet?], being convinced of Presbyterianism… and circumstances were such, anyway, they came into the OPC at that time.

Tim Hopper: So was your call there simply by them hearing your tapes, or did they actually have you come and candidate?

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, I came to candidate. I spent a week in Massachusetts.

Tim Hopper: With your whole family, or you?

Irfon Hughes: No, on my own. When I got home, my eyes were so bad. My blood sugars were so high—which I didn’t know about; I didn’t keep a close watch on them—that my eyes were affected and I couldn’t see with my glasses.

And when I got off the train, Ann came to meet me off the train. She didn’t know me. But my face had changed and everything. It’s just the effects of sugar.

Coming to America, you do eat a lot of carbs, and I really packed it on.

So I came and I candidated here, and they issued a call. Unanimous? No, not unanimous. I’ve never had a unanimous call. It was a call with a couple of dissensions, and I decided to accept the call and came, as I said, in 1984.

Tim Hopper: If I recall correctly, when you were married, Ann was quite homesick just moving a valley over. Was it a hard sell for her to go to Massachusetts?

Irfon Hughes: Well, it was. But she got over her homesickness in a record time. Her sister was with her; Crystal Bell stayed with us for a couple of weeks, and that helped her, and she got over it.

She got over it in about three months; it was done.

I, on the other hand, seemed to get over it in a week, and then it hit me, and for two years I was so homesick because I’d done so much in the United Kingdom.

There was the Ministers’ Reform Fellowship, or RMF, where I was the chairman, and I was involved with things of that order, and counseled ministers and traveled to meet with ministers to comfort them and encourage them.

And I really was very involved in the good of the church. I loved it.

And then I did the Chinese Fellowship. The Chinese were to come to our church and they had a…

Tim Hopper: That’s in Sheffield.

Irfon Hughes: And they would come to our church, and then they had a house. They belonged to the CCOM, Chinese Christian Overseas Mission, and they had bought a house and several of them lived there.

They would have a fellowship on a Saturday afternoon and I would go and speak at that, or I would go and keep an eye on who was speaking there. And I was their pastor, basically. [I got stuff in the house?], mentors of that time.

And I loved working with Chinese, and I still have the greatest admiration for the Chinese people.

As a young Christian, I wanted to be a missionary to China, and I really did. I’d read all the books, and that to me was my field.

My health broke down and that was never going to be possible.

And one of the Chinese said to me once, “You want to be a missionary to China, pastor, but God sent the Chinese to you.”

Irfon Hughes: And I was their pastor, and they looked to me. Not all of them attended with us, but many of them did. There was a whole squad of Chinese came to us. But even those who didn’t, they would call me and ask me to help them and to advise them and so on.

So I had all that going on, and then I had the Yorkshire Reform Ministers’ Fellowship, and I was chairman of that. I was voted into that job about the second year I was there, and I chaired it for 10 or 11 years and pastored the pastors and looked after them and got to know their situations and traveled around Yorkshire and preached. Every week I was preaching somewhere within the fellowship. A church in Huddersfield: “Could you come and preach for us on Friday night and Saturday?” And life was very full and difficult.

Even though the church life… the church life was good. We had to extend the building internally, and I did most of that by myself. And there was a platform behind the pulpit.

And this is just a funny story. There was a platform behind the pulpit. When the building was built in about 1880, they expected they would have a choir there. Well, of course, they never had a choir; the congregation was always too small. And then it was taken over by the people who formed Wycliffe. And they said, “Well, we’ve got to take out that platform and take the pulpit back.”

That’s what we did, except I did it on my own. I took this platform down. I was working underneath it, and there were nails yay long. And then to get them down, to take the plank… and the planks were the width of the building, pretty much. And the building was, I don’t know, 25, 30 feet. And these long planks, I took them all down, put them down in a waste hole down in the basement.

I came home after doing that one day. I couldn’t do it all because bits of it were too heavy to carry. I came home and Catrin was a baby, maybe one year, maybe two years old. And I came home and she didn’t know me. My face was black, ‘cause she cried and screamed because my face was so black.

Then we were able to take the pulpit back, and it took ten young, strong men to pick up the pulpit and to get it back. And I remember vividly, one man was at the back and we put it down and he’s standing there… “Don’t say anything, Dave.” I said, “What’s the matter?” “My foot.” The pulpit was the last… [unclear]. He was a surgeon. He died just a few months ago—cancer, 79 years of age. And he used to call me when I was here and we would talk, and we were good friends. He was a good friend.

So that was the time then. The church expanded and more people came, and it was a good time. On one level, it was an excellent time.

I tell the story, you may have heard it, of the young man who came and he had a crucifix. I was preaching about the cross and we shouldn’t wear crucifixes… covering up his crucifixion, but I don’t know if it was true. I don’t know. And of course, I’ve been gone from there 30-plus years now, 35 years. So I don’t know these people any longer.

But anyway, the call to Upton, and I came to Upton in ‘82… no, sorry, ‘84. ‘84. And then I spent nine and a half years there, and then I came to Hillcrest.

Tim Hopper: Before we come to Hillcrest, you said when you first came to Upton you just felt very disconnected after all those connections that you had in the UK. Did you find connections with other ministers? Make them. You got to do it yourself.

And so I got to know an Englishman who ministered 15, 20 miles away, called John Crighton, and we were talking one day and I said, “Wouldn’t it be great if we had a ministers’ fraternal in this area?” “That’s a good idea,” he said.

He contacted a man that he knew, and I contacted a couple of men that I had got to know, and contacted people in the denomination in the PCA and the OPC, and we got a fraternal going called the Southern New England, or the New England Reformed Fellowship—NERF. We were NERFs, and they used to call me Papa NERF. I was popping off.

And one day we were sitting around having lunch together—sandwiches and chatter—and I said, “Wouldn’t it be good to have a Minister’s conference?” “Yeah, well, maybe we should have a conference for our wives as well.”

Well, I was not for that. I was for a model of the Banner of Truth Ministers’ Conference in the United Kingdom: only men. But they wanted—because they were Americans—they wanted their wives to come, so that was it.

And it still exists. It’s called the Bolton Conference. And it meets now in Whitinsville. It left Bolton, where John Crighton was the minister, and came to Whitinsville, and they meet in Whitinsville every year.

And they had eminent speakers come over from the United Kingdom and here from the United States, and some… they have some good conferences. And it still goes, and that was founded… I spoke at the 20th conference, and I think I was still in Hillcrest, and I’ve been from Hillcrest ten years, so it must have been going 30 years at least.

And still… Rob Hill—do you ever know Rob?—Rob goes to it now, and he is a part of the Southern New England Reformed Fellowship, because it became Southern New England Reformed Fellowship because they formed another one in the north. And Rob goes to that from Western Massachusetts, West Springfield, and says that it goes very well. He’s been very impressed with the way it was put together.

So we did that. I got contacts.

Tim Hopper: Was the American Banner of Truth Pastors’ Conference going at that time?

Irfon Hughes: It was, and I went to the first one that I was here in the States for. That was in 1983, ‘84. It was over in Grand Rapids, and we drove over there. A man who’s now the principal of a Baptist seminary in Texas, Jim [Ranahan?], Jim came, and David [Katherine?], who was my friend out in Duanesburg, New York, we picked him up, and we drove over to Grand Rapids.

It took us a day and a half to do that. And a day and a half to come back. And Jim went some other way back, I think. I don’t remember him traveling with us.

But anyway, we went over together to that, and that was in Grand Rapids, in Calvin and Calvin Seminary. And I remember vividly, I had made a good friend called Al Martin when I was in the United Kingdom, and Al sees me coming in the door, and he’s a big man, he’s six feet tall—well, not that now, he’s a very sick, old man—but he was coming across, and he saw me and just raced across the Calvin Chapel and picked me up, and people thought that there’s something happened to him or I’d done something wrong. Just such an embrace.

And then, of course, the Banner was affected by the split between Al and Walt Chantry, and both of them now old and feeble men. I tried to engineer a reconciliation between them. There was no reconciling. That’s very sad.

Anyway, I went to the Banner and I identified with the Banner.

Tim Hopper: You attended that conference for many, many years, right?

Irfon Hughes: Oh, yes, yes, yes. And went to lots of places. It was held down in… When was the minister… he stayed in the RCA and he had a church down in… oh, some southern place, and I don’t remember where it was.

And went down there, and of course, going down in the spring and the blossoms were out and all that kind of thing. It’s lovely.

Yeah, I went to that a lot of times. And then it moved. They then split it up; there was an East Coast Conference and a West Coast Conference.

And so it split, and it changed its venue. It went to… it came to Pennsylvania. It was in Messiah College for a lot of time, and then it’s moved again now to Elizabethtown.

I’ve been there a couple of times. I don’t go now, mainly because of my health and because it’s a long way to drive up there. I went two years ago with Owen.

Tim Hopper: But that’s been an important conference for you, just in relationships outside of even just edification of the conference itself.

Irfon Hughes: Oh yeah, the conferences were good and I enjoyed them. In fact, I was responsible for organizing them for five years, from 2000 to 2005. Joel Beeke, a Baptist called Steve Martin who is now the provost of this Baptist seminary out in mid-Texas, and myself. And I was chairman of this little committee, and I organized it.

Its venues… it was always at Messiah in my time. Got to know the men then and the contact, of course. And because you moderate a conference, because you speak at it—because one of us spoke every year, of the committee… Steve Martin spoke one year, I spoke a couple of times, and Joel spoke a couple of times.

And then they decided to move the organization from America to the committee of the Banner, and they organized it. Ian Hamilton is often over here—he’s a trustee of Greenville Theological Seminary and he comes over often—and so they run it that way now.

And I went after they reorganized it, but I retired then in 2008 and I was not quite as involved. And I moved down here to South Carolina, and that’s a long drive to Pennsylvania. And they moved it to Elizabethtown, and that’s even more complicated to get to.

So, as I said, I’ve been a couple of times, but I don’t have the same urgency as it was. But the Banner has always been—since David Dickson on the Psalms—the Banner has been a constant in my thinking.

And I know Iain Murray, the founder. I knew Jack Cullum, who was the money behind the Banner. Impressive fellow, Jack. Six foot eight. Impressive, godly man.

He suffered terrible disappointments and sadness in his life, and then eventually he took his own life. I went to his funeral, and Paul Tucker preached it. I remember it was held in the Welsh Chapel in Chilton Street in London.

But he was a gracious man, was Jack. He gave me a gift once of money, 200 pounds, and that became the basis of our buying a house in America. It became part of our down payment… part of our down payment for the house in Sheffield, come to think of it, and then the house in America.

And then every place we had a home, we were able, and Jack Cullum’s money lay at the base of it. So the Banner has always been a major part of my life.

Tim Hopper: And a major part of your library as well. It was… I bought sets and I’ve been blessed in that I’ve been able to sell it to the church. I still think that I was a bit stung by what was offered.

Tim Hopper: I had nothing to do with the price.

Irfon Hughes: But it was… Yeah, the Banner. I thank God for the Banner. I thank God for Iain, and they’re both still alive, both well into their 80s. Still get a letter from him and Jean occasionally.

Tim Hopper: I remember after college, because you had introduced me to the Banner of Truth, I sent him a handwritten letter. Somehow, I guess I just mailed it to the Banner of Truth, and I got a letter back from him and he asked me for your email address. He was more tech-savvy than I would have guessed.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, he was a sharp cookie, Iain Murray. He is a godly, gracious, kindly man, but as hard as nails. You don’t organize a book outfit like the Banner and be a softie.

He is a good man, like Walt Chantry is a good man, and Al Martin. I respect them all. They are to be admired and emulated in so many ways.

But my closest friend is Jeff Thomas, who cared for the Banner website for a number of years and retired after 52 years in church in Aberystwyth.

And his wife died 18 months ago, and he remarried. Last year he was 80 in October; he remarried in May. And his wife, Barbara, is a lovely lady. I’ve met her once; I don’t know her.

But I had a note from Jeff today, in fact, which ended with a Welsh greeting.

Anyway, I came to Hillcrest.

Tim Hopper: Tell that story. How did you end up getting from Massachusetts to Western Pennsylvania?

Irfon Hughes: Well, I had decided that congregationalism was not my cup of tea. I became covenantal in baptizing children. And then I got to understand the Westminster Confession; I studied the confession.

And I realized that I was a Presbyterian. In truth, not just nominally. I love the confession, I love the Shorter Catechism and the larger one, too. I love them.

And I realized that my sympathies and my temperament and my attitude was PCA and not OPC. I visited OPC things, but I always felt like a sore thumb. They didn’t embrace me. I was congregational…

And but if I go to a PCA church, a PCA organization or gathering, I was always welcome.

And then I met a man called Howard Griffith who teaches now at Washington, at the RTS in Washington. And Howard, he’s years younger than me. And Howard’s attitude was so catholic, the way that I felt about people, that I thought, “This is my home.”

And so I applied to a church in Western Pennsylvania called Hillcrest Presbyterian Church. And it had been called Church of the Living Word, but that was before my time.

Tim Hopper: Was Catrin already attending there at the time?

Irfon Hughes: Catrin was at Grove City College. She went to Hillcrest normally on a Sunday morning, and then she’d go to the OP on the Sunday evening. The OP church is only 100 yards away from the college—well, more than 100 but not more than 500—and she would go there in the evening, but in the morning she’d come out to Hillcrest, and so they knew her a little bit.

And then I came. I candidated there in March.

Oh, it was cold. There had been a blizzard, and the blizzard had come right across, and it was in Massachusetts. I drove down to Rhode Island to catch a plane from Providence to fly down to Pittsburgh, and we had to follow a snow plow in order to get to the airport.

Anyway, I left a call there, and then Anne flew home before me, and I stayed and candidated there—preached twice on the Sunday, taught Sunday school.

They called me. They had a congregational meeting on Wednesday after I’d been there, and everybody but four people voted for me out of about 45, and so I had a majority of the vote.

There were four people, and I can’t remember who the four were, and two of them later made a point of telling me that they’d voted against me, but now they regretted having done so.

And those were the happiest years of my life. Oh.

Tim Hopper: You served there from ‘92 to…?

Irfon Hughes: ‘92 until… I was there for 15 years, so it must have been ‘93 to 2008.

Tim Hopper: ‘08, so when I graduated.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah. It was a great, great time. I preached. And I would have carried on preaching.

I would do sometimes as many as 500 visits a year. Loved the pastoral work, loved traveling.

We had members… if I visited my most northerly member and most southerly member on the same day, I did something like 70 miles.

The McCains were way up, and Ray Frasier and Peggy were way down. They were in Butler.

I rarely did that, but that’s the length of pastoral care I had.

Tim Hopper: Where did you learn to do pastoral visitation like that?

Irfon Hughes: From H.S. Williams. He was an inveterate visitor and dealt with problems with people. It wasn’t counseling, but if you had a complaint, you brought it up to him. And that’s where I learned it, right at the beginning, and I did it in all my churches. Less efficiently here in Shiloh because I’m older and I’m not able to get out and about as much as I did.

Tim Hopper: But it’s something that if you ask someone who knows about your ministry, that’s one of the things that will come up, is your commitment to visiting your…

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, I hope it would be, because that’s what I would do. And in the home. And I was a back-door visitor, not a front-door visitor. A back-door visitor.

I made a point of being where people were in the house. They’d say, “What are you doing here? This is the kitchen.” I’d say, “Well, what, do you live in the kitchen?”

And I really feel that I know that in a church like Shiloh, spread around, I know that that’s hard. But we’re not called to an easy life.

And you need to see people in their home environment. How do they deal with their children? How do they deal with their wives or their husbands? How do they deal with the issues that come?

I know it’s difficult, but it can be done. You say, “Well, women can’t be visitors on their own by a man.” That’s true. Got to be very careful.

Some women you can; they’re mature enough and they’re stable enough, and if you know there’s an issue there, you just pop in and see them. You don’t have to spend an hour there or two hours; you don’t have to lock a door.

Ann would come with me on some of these visits. If there was somebody that we knew would be alone, she would come with me. But I visited older people, older women, on their own.

Tim Hopper: I came to Hillcrest in 2004. After my family had only been in a Presbyterian Church for two years, I wasn’t necessarily a committed Presbyterian at that point.

And it’s a church out in the country—literally out in the cornfields—that was formed by these Scots-Irish farmers who were there as their previous church had become more liberal.

And a striking thing for me, even in the Presbyterian Church I’d been at previously—a big First Presbyterian Church, Bluefield, West Virginia; it’s not a small town, but a big city church with the big organ and choir and all the gizmos—what’s striking walking up to Hillcrest, and I was just there a few months back, is it’s a church without any glitz or glam or light shows or anything.

It’s a very ordinary church that, in your time there and before you and after you, is a church that’s committed to the ordinary means of grace, which was a very formative experience for me, being there for four years.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, it was a simple church. And when I went there, of course, we didn’t have that big auditorium. And of course, they did so much building in my time. But it was small, and the auditorium, the old building, was really rough inside.

And it had a piano. A pretty jangly piano, which has long since died. But it was meant to be a home church.

Now, at Christmastime they still had Christmas trees inside and all the rest of it, and a Santa, I think. Certainly when I went there, I said, “This has to go.”

And the elders were in total agreement. And they said, “You’re right, it goes.” And it went.

They still put up some holly and stuff like that, but basically it was simple and everything.

I remember… oh, what’s her name? Rick Burkett’s mother-in-law. I was thinking about her yesterday.

Tim Hopper: Betty Kay Maher.

Irfon Hughes: Betty Kay. One Sunday we were so full that the deacons met with the elders straight after the service and cut a hole in the back of the building so people could sit in the old auditorium. And Betty Kay said to me as we were coming out, “We’d filled this church without a band.”

Tim Hopper: That’s right.

Irfon Hughes: And we put the piano at the back so that it never dominated the worship. And I still think that I would prefer the piano here, but I know that it can’t be done. But it was at the back, and the worship was focused on the word.

And we designed the seating… In the old church, there was a central aisle. And they asked me when they were putting up the new seating now, “What are we going to do about this?”

I said, “No central aisle.” “Well, how can we have weddings?” “Oh, simple,” I said. “People can walk down the front.”

And well, I think they still move the chairs out for a wedding so the bride can walk down the middle. But it was always that the central feature was the word. And that the focus was to be on the word.

It wasn’t to be to the side; it was to be the word. And that when you preach, you didn’t preach down the aisle, you preached to the people.

And Betty Kay said, “We did all this without a band.” That’s right. Just simple preaching.

And it was very simple because I’m a very simple man. And you came and I was beginning my exposition on Isaiah, I believe.

Tim Hopper: I was trying to remember if that started in the fall. It might have been in 2005, in my second semester, but that went almost my entire time at the college.

Irfon Hughes: And it was laborious because I’m not a Hebraist. And I was unaware of all the trends, redemptive-historical preaching, academic research. And I’m… that was never me. I did what I could and what I understood, and God was pleased to bless the work. I attributed all to God’s grace and glory. And the student fellowship sprang out of that.

Tim Hopper: And even during the regular worship at Shiloh—I’m sorry, at Hillcrest—towards the end of the time there, there were maybe a hundred or more students who would pack in the front sections and even around the sides of the pulpit.

Irfon Hughes: Right, there were chairs around there. And they’ve taken those away, I think, now. I don’t know. But students were right at the back.

I can remember the Sunday after 9/11. Well, they were packed all the way through.

But people used to say to me, “What are these streams of cars that go out of Grove City and all the way down Route 19? Where are they all going?” And of course, they would come to Hillcrest.

And streams of cars… I can’t understand why. I really, at this point in my life, have no idea why. I just thank God that it happened.

Tim Hopper: Now, you often undervalue your ministry there. But even just in my years there, knowing how many friends of mine sat under your ministry in a formative time in their lives…

certainly not all of them are in reformed churches anymore, but I think for many, many people, that really shaped their Christian commitments and, particularly as we’ve been discussing, a commitment to the word in a way that not all the churches in the area necessarily offered, which is a good thing in the Lord’s mercy.

Irfon Hughes: Yes, it was… it’s been amazing.

Tim Hopper: Was Isaiah your favorite book to preach through, or did you have a particular favorite ever?

Irfon Hughes: I never had a favorite book to preach through. The book I was preaching from was my favorite book. Sure.

Tim Hopper: Any books you didn’t preach through that you wish you had? Oh yes, yes, yes, yes. I wish I’d preached through Revelation, but I didn’t. I preached through it once, maybe, but never understood it.

I’m ashamed to say that I preached and I didn’t understand.

But since G. K. Beale had done that massive Commentary on Revelation, and then the digest commentary which I use frequently, and the book now, the sermons by Joel… Yeah, that’s… those three books are the two books.

I don’t have the big compendium of what he calls volume… G. K. Beale’s commentary book, but I use those other two, and I just wish I’d been able to preach through Revelation now.

But I can’t, and I never will, although I’m always hoping that some church is going to call me out of retirement and then I can do Revelation, but that’s not going to happen.

Tim Hopper: In 2007, you announced you were going to retire from Hillcrest, which was great timing for me because you retired, I think, about a month after I graduated from Hillcrest, so we got to finish our time together.

Our dear mutual friend Ryan Biese at our congregational meeting nominated me as one of the members of your retirement party planning committee, so I had that special privilege in my senior year of Grove City to plan your retirement.

Which at that point, neither of us could have ever imagined that you would then be my pastor again six years later in North Carolina.

But where did you go then from Hillcrest?

Irfon Hughes: Well, Katherine lived down here. Her husband is a lawyer, Kevin, and she had settled down here.

We had decided when we were going to retire, where would we go? And it was inevitable we would come down here to be close to Catrin.

My daughter Nicola, realizing that we would come down here, she and her husband uproots from Massachusetts and came down here as well.

So we had two daughters living down in this area, and it was inevitable that that’s why we would come.

And so Andy Webb in Fayetteville asked us if we would come and help him.

Tim Hopper: And he’s a PCA minister in Fayetteville?

Irfon Hughes: PCA minister in Fayetteville.

Tim Hopper: Who you knew through the Banner of Truth, is that right?

Irfon Hughes: I’d met him at Banner and then General Assembly, so we went to him. Within two months, Andy asked me if I would become the associate pastor.

I said no, because the church has to call you to be an associate. You can only be an assistant if you’re called by the session.

“All right,” he said, “we’ll call you to be an assistant.”

And I said, “No. Assistants can’t speak. That’s a Book of Church Order. Assistants only come when invited and can only speak when invited.”

Tim Hopper: For session meetings?

Irfon Hughes: At session meetings. And he said, “We’ll put a bylaw in to say you can speak at any time and you must come to every meeting.” And so, really, I became the associate pastor, and I preached. Regularly.

And by the time that end of our time—we were there for five and a half years—for the last year or 18 months, I preached there every Sunday evening, and he preached every Sunday morning.

And then I formed a friendship… I am gregarious, and I love meeting with other ministers, and I’d formed a friendship with Gabe Fluhrer, who was the minister here at Shiloh.

And Shiloh came into being in 2010, and they didn’t have a minister because, of course, they were just a church plant. And when they had difficult pastoral issues, Kevin was the only elder, and my daughter Catrin would… she’d ask me to do this, do that, and I dealt with several people, come up and spend a day here and do that.

Well, when Gabe came, I wasn’t necessary. I wasn’t needed.

But then in… when did I come here? 2014… about 2012, 2013, Gabe and I would have lunch together once every couple of months. And at the end of 2013, he decided he wanted an associate and put it to the session, and they interviewed me in The Pit. Do you know where The Pit is? It’s an eating house in town.

Tim Hopper: Oh, yes. A very good eating house.

Irfon Hughes: Yeah, so we ate at The Pit and they interviewed me and invited me to become the assistant. They put it to the church—I’d preached for Shiloh many times when it was on Penny Road—and there were no objections. And then I had to try the exams. Here I am, 72 years of age.

Tim Hopper: So we had tried to see if there was any way for you to serve out of bounds as a PCA minister, or maybe… I’m not sure, maybe our book of church order wouldn’t allow it, so you had to transfer your ordination.

Irfon Hughes: That’s right. Presbytery would not allow it. There was no reason why they wouldn’t allow it, but they decided that they wanted to be precise, and so I did the exams on the computer. And I passed those, and some were open book—they were the hardest ones. And then I was interviewed by Presbytery, and I came, and I was interviewed by Presbytery, and I was received.

Tim Hopper: Which was a very, very sweet interview. You were treated very respectfully, I—

Irfon Hughes: Oh, they did, did. And what is amusing, one of my references was Toby Curto—was Tony’s son—and they only read two of the references. Tony Curto gets up and says, “I want you to read all the references,” because of course his son’s name was on it.

Tim Hopper: So after 30 years of insisting you would never be an OPC man, at 72 you became an OPC minister.

Irfon Hughes: I became an OPC man. But I’ve never become a part of the OPC. I think that’s mainly because I’ve never gone to General Assembly. I was never invited to go. And whilst I agree with the delegated General Assembly—I agree with that, I think that’s very good—I’ve always felt a bit of a bump on a log for the OPC. I’ve been a pastor for them, and I will no doubt end my life as an OPC man.

Tim Hopper: So a year after you came here, Gabe Fluhrer left, so you were suddenly the solo pastor yet again, unexpectedly.

Irfon Hughes: Unexpectedly. I remember it very well. I’ll just say something. I was sitting in my house quietly, very quietly on a Wednesday, and the telephone goes and it’s Gabe. “Would you come for a session meeting this evening at 7:00?” I said, “Why?” “Oh, I’ve got to meet with the whole session.” Or did they come on their email? Maybe it came on an email.

Anyway, we were going out for supper with Gareth and Emily who had recently come to live close by, and I said I’ll come. And I can remember that drive. Traffic was horrendous, and I got into the church at twenty minutes to seven and they’re talking about mowing the grass.

And I thought, this is all I’ve come up for? I’m just going to be mad. And the people who mowed the grass at that time—were you a Deacon then?—the people who had mowed the grass had done so before 7:00 in the morning, and the people had complained because there’s an ordinance that you can’t start machinery before 7:00. So what are we going to do? We’re going to fire the grass mowers. And that’s what they did.

But I thought, this is mad. And then Gabe said, “This is the reason why I’ve invited you. I have been called and accepted the call to be an assistant pastor at First Pres, Jackson, Mississippi.”

Well, the other men were floored. I, strictly enough, I wasn’t floored. It doesn’t surprise me. I’m a minister. I know ministers get invited and they accept calls. I was a bit sad that he was going to go, but I wasn’t terribly shocked.

And so he told the congregation, and I picked up the pieces. I preached regularly, sometimes once a month, sometimes twice a month, and then going through the process of inviting a candidate.

Matthew came to preach in January of… …three years ago. Three years ago now. So where are we at? 2008… 2016? And he was invited to be the minister. And he came.

I had no hand in that. I didn’t even sit on the pulpit committee, so even though he was the son of a friend of mine, I had no hand in that. And I seek in every way I can to be his loyal supporter and friend, and that’s been true.

We are friends. I don’t always agree with him, but I think he’s a very brave and very faithful man. I believe he does what he thinks is best, and he’s faithful in doing it. I’ve got no complaints.

Tim Hopper: And so, for a time you served, you continued in your role as a pastor.

Irfon Hughes: I continued until 2017, when I felt that I’d been in the ministry 50 years. And I thought that it was an appropriate time to resign as the associate pastor—as the other pastor.

And I took up a role on the session until the session elected and ordained another Elder.

So I knew that once David Okken came on board, I would need to step down, and I decided to do it in December.

I didn’t want to come out in January or February when my hands are always cold, and so I stepped down December 31st, 2019.

And now I’m trying to enjoy retirement. Tim and I have been friends.

Tim Hopper: Almost 15 years.

Irfon Hughes: Almost 15 years. And Tim helped me move some of my books and help me pack book boxes when I left Hillcrest.

And he became a firm family friend and would help set up for the Fellowship on Sunday evenings, go down to our basement.

The church helped us buy some chairs, and he would go down, and there was a narrow little passage down. I was always dreading he’d hit his head on that low ceiling, but he did it faithfully.

Tim Hopper: For our College Fellowship group, we would hustle back to your house after evening worship and set up… I don’t know how many chairs we had, maybe…

Irfon Hughes: I think we had 20 chairs.

Tim Hopper: And then students would just sit all over the floor and…

Irfon Hughes: Oh yeah, all over.

Tim Hopper: Four rooms of your house with students in.

Irfon Hughes: Three rooms. All three rooms, and sometimes in the kitchen, but normally the three rooms. I would sit in the middle room, but the ones in the far right room… they were always dissolute students there. And I knew because I could see them, although they didn’t know I was watching.

And then in the other room it was what I call… and then Christmas time, we would have a Christmas party, and my wife had been given a set of false ears which illuminated.

And she would… a little battery, and she would say to students, “When you’re gone for Christmas, I’m going to have an operation on my ears.” And they’d go, “Why?” And she’d press this thing and they would illuminate. And that was always a laugh and a half.

And then we did several Banner books—and I think I introduced the students to the Banner as a publishing house. We did The Godly Man’s Picture.

Somebody in the north of England recommended that in the Banner conference, when asked what books have been really formative, and this young man, Malcolm McGregor, got up and said, “The Godly Man’s Picture,” and that persuaded me to read it. And it’s very good.

The one I really liked was Thomas Watson… Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices. I remember very well saying to the students, “Does anyone know Thomas Watson?”

And this young lady from Virginia—what is her name? Abby. Abby Barr said, “I know him.” She said, “He’s a friend of my pastor’s.” And I said, “How old is your pastor? Because he’s been dead since 1686.” And she said, “Oh!” But it always became “Abby’s pastor’s friend.”

Tim Hopper: She was one of the troublemakers who sat in the back room.

Irfon Hughes: That’s right, that’s right. She did.

Tim Hopper: I’ve never made this connection before, but I’m sure several marriages came out of College Fellowship. But interestingly, I first met my now brother-in-law at College Fellowship, Doug. He introduced himself to me in your hallway outside the kitchen, and then many years later introduced me to Maggie, my wife. So in some ways, my marriage is attributed to College Fellowship.

Irfon Hughes: Good. That’s right. That’s amazing.

Tim Hopper: Maybe as we conclude, could you read a little passage from The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson? This last paragraph on 125, on afflictions. It’s one I found that I had marked.

This is Tim’s testimony really, that he’s discovered, and I am glad to read it. Afflictions quicken our pace on the way to heaven.

It is with us as with children sent on an errand. If they meet with apples or flowers by the way, they linger and are in no hurry to get home. But if anything frightens them, they run, then they run with all the speed they can to their father’s house.

So in prosperity we gather the apples and flowers and do not give much thought to heaven. But if troubles begin to arise and the times grow frightful, then we make more haste to heaven and with David, run the way of God’s Commandments, Psalm 119:32.

What a profound insight that is from Thomas Watson. What a profound thought. When we don’t have troubles, then we tend to linger, but when we have afflictions, then we run to God.

What a good insight. I appreciate that very much.

I can only say that these books are worth getting, these Puritan paperbacks. I recommend them. [unclear] I recommend the Banner. And paperbacks.

And if you’ve got any doubts with regard to what it means to be a Christian, read Pink’s The Sovereignty of God.

Benefit to the elders. By having a well functioning diaconate, elders will be relieved of the responsibility of caring for the material needs of the poor. Qualified men will be more willing to become elders knowing they won’t have this responsibility. Elders will more effectively be able to care for the spiritual needs of their flock without prejudices created by caring for material needs. Finally, the office of deacon provides “an excellent nursery for the eldership”; young men serving as deacons might be prepared to later serve as elders.

Benefit to the pastor. An effective diaconate “would at once relieve, and strengthen, and encourage” a pastor. “He feels, that amid all his own difficulties and discouragements, he is not standing alone—that others are alive to his circumstances, and sympathize with him, and are forward to aid him—and that he can have their advice and cooperation in many matters which are otherwise fitted to distract and to burden.”

Benefit to the deacon. “The office of deacon tends to amalgamate ranks, to soften differences, to prevent or correct pernicious misapprehensions.” It prevents in the deacon “the growth of selfishness and worldliness, and exaggerated views of life, in an age peculiarly addicted to such evils, is the more important.”

Benefit to the poor. The poor will be treated not with the “coldness and harshness… of paid agents” or the “fits and starts” of private Christians, but with “persevering application” and “intelligent sympathizing kindness” of deacons.

Benefit to the church. When the diaconate is functioning well, the whole church will be strengthened in love for one another. The people will be better served as the minister and elders are freed to perform their calling. The church will be “crowned with the approbation of her exalted Head.”

Photo of the Statue of Thomas Chalmers, George Street, Edinburgh by Carlos Delgado - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Q. 1. How long were you a deacon of St John’s?

A. Eighteen years,–from 1819 to 1837.

Q. 2. What was the size of your district; how many families?

A. At my first survey the district contained 99 families of 476 individuals. Next year several additional deacons were appointed, and my proportion was reduced to 56 families of nearly 300 members. In 1831 some new houses were built, increasing the families to 81–359 members, and so on from year to year, till the population amounted to 117 families of 570 members.

Q. 3. What time did the charge occupy; did you easily over-take the management?

A. With 56 families, in ordinary circumstances, very little of my time was occupied, and my office was by no means irksome; but when the families increased to 80, 100, and upwards, I found it more difficult to keep up my acquaintance in the district, so that I had less comfort in going amongst them; and whilst my visits were in reality more requisite, they became less frequent. It is easy to keep up a pleasant familiar knowledge of a small number of families, which creates such interest as to carry one readily back to the district.

Q. 4. What were the general principles on which you acted in the management of the poor?

A. My first aim was to become acquainted with all the families, and when any person applied for relief, I visited and made a strict investigation, then gave in a report of the case at our first monthly meeting. If it was considered that further inquiry was requisite, or to relieve me of the odium of a refusal, if such was thought proper, another deacon was appointed to visit along with me.

Q. 5. What was the mode in which you sought to carry your principles into effect

A. If the applicant was out of work, or had children able for work, we need such means as were within our reach to get employment for them; or if they had any friends or relatives able to assist them, or were members of any dissenting congregation, we were required to apply to any or all of the quarters before granting any allowance.

Q. 6. How often were you in the habit of visiting your district?

A. The year 1819–20 was one of great depression and great hardship, and my visits were of course very frequent and very trying, as the operatives were almost in a state of rebellion, and many of them scowled upon me in defiance; but by steady perseverance I was enabled to overcome that feeling, and gained a knowledge of the people at that time, which made frequent visits less needful for years to come.

Q. 7. What topics did you find for conversation?

A. Education, week-day and Sabbath schools, were fruitful topics on my part, and poverty and distress never-failing ones on the part of the people.

Q. 8. Were you well received?

A. Yes, with few exceptions; and in many cases most cordially welcomed, and much pressed to repeat my visit soon.

Q. 9. Had you any difficulty in ascertaining the exact truth? What means did you employ to reach it?

A. Where the people thought they had any interest in concealing it, or if they did not understand the object of my inquiries, I found it very difficult to get at the exact truth, and frequently have come away with a wrong impression; however, this helped to sharpen my ingenuity, though often baffled after all.

Q. 10. Do you remember particular cases of good being done, and of the expression of gratitude for your services?

A. I can recollect but a very few cases in which the relief afforded called forth any expression of gratitude, and that same from industrious well-doing folks, who were anxious to help themselves, and who had received from me some little acts of kindness besides the parish aid. Of course much real good was done.

Q. 11. Did you use means to prevent poverty; such as by encouraging education, church attendance, the savings’ bank, circulating Bibles, finding employment for those out of work?

A. The means stated in this query were used on various occasions, but none of them except the last when a person applied for parish aid; the others would not have gone well down with a starving family. The deacons were often very useful in finding work for the people.

Q. 12. In what would you say that the mainspring of your management consisted?

A. Kindness, prompt attention to every application, whether deserving or not; never administering help in ignorance to save myself the trouble of a visit; rigid investigation, &c. See answer to query 4th.

Q. 13. When the people got accustomed to the St John’s management, did they like it as well as that of other sessions?

A. For some years at first there was a strong prejudice against St John’s management,–alleging that they were deprived of the town’s hospital: and this was strengthened by partially from other parishes that ought to have known better; but, latterly, I had no complaints on that score, and our importe from other parishes in town were always greater than our exporte.

Q. 14. Was it as liberal in cases of real distress?

A. We were furnished with a list of the allowances made by the town’s hospital for cases beyond the sessional, and we were regulated by it; but, in some cases, such as palsy, &c., we were constrained to give a very liberal aliment.

Q. 15. Did you live near the district, or do you attach any importance to this?

A. I did not live in my district, but (though many of my brethren held a different opinion) I think it of very great importance that the deacon should do so, as it tends to save much of his time, and give him greater facilities in acquiring a knowledge of his district, as well as a benefit to the applicants themselves.

Q. 16. Are there any suggestions which occur to you as important in connexion with the management, such as regular attendance on the court of deacons, &c.?

A. I consider regular attendance at the deacons’ meetings of the utmost importance; it keeps up his interest, adds to his knowledge and experience, and strengthens the hands of his fellow-labourers. During my 18 years I declined all engagements which would interfere with those meetings, and was absent on only six or eight occasions, owing either to sickness or being necessarily from home. I think, also, the minister of the parish should be as often present as possible, and ought to make himself well acquainted with the working of the system, as his opinion will naturally have much weight with inexperienced hands.

If you enjoyed this interview, consider reading the whole book.

On Being Like-Minded

Next month, on June 11th to be exact, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church begins its 50th year of existence. Plans are already well underway looking toward our semicentennial celebration a year from now. Such a milestone naturally promotes a sense of denominational awareness and reflection about ourselves and our future. But in our case this self-awareness is heightened by the fact that we are faced squarely with the question whether or not we ought to continue to exist as a separate denomination. In what may well be a unique moment in church history we are being called to celebrate and to consider cessation at one and the same time.

Understandably there are deep differences of conviction among us on this issue, and several other difficult and controversial items are on our agenda. Just in view of these differences, then, as we come to the work of this General Assembly, we do well to consider something of what Scripture says about unity in the church. In particular our text, Philippians 2:1-5, is a timely word, one which we all need to hear, regardless of which side we may take on the critical issues before us.

The theme of Christian unity is prominent, even emphatic, in these verses. In fact, so far as I see, nowhere else does the New Testament speak to this issue in such a perceptive and practical way. In verse 2 the accent on unity is especially strong and repeated: " . . . the same mind, … the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose."

One useful way of reflecting on this emphasis is to do so in terms of certain barriers to our understanding, certain limitations in our perception that need to be cleared away. To begin with, we have the difficulty that the unity Paul has in view is contrary to so much of our experience in the church and among Christians, and to our expectations reduced as they so often are by these experiences. But we must be clear that here Paul is not simply expressing a yearning, or indulging in wishful idealism. No, unity is a reality he expects to find and to be experienced in the church. He expects that because the call to unity in verse 2 doesn’t hang in the air, or exist by itself. It is rooted in what is said in verse 1: “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, ….” The fourfold stress on unity in verse 2 answers to the fourfold “if…” in verse 1. The best translation for each of these four “if” clauses can be debated, but their basic thrust is plain: They refer to the salvation revealed in Christ and experienced in union with him, and to the fellowship created by the Holy Spirit.

Here, as always in the New Testament, indicative and imperative belong together. The imperative is not an isolated call to action, but flows out of the grand gospel indicative of God’s salvation revealed once for all in “the fulness of time” (Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10). Where salvation in Christ is a reality, Paul is telling us, there he expects to see the reality of Christian unity. The two are inseparable; the one is really unthinkable without the other.

Having the Mind of a Servant

What now, more exactly is the substance of this reality, the nature of the unity to be realized? Immediately, we have to deal with a further limitation in our perception. Our initial reaction, predictably, is to think that the answer is unity in doctrine, a doctrinal uniformity to be prized and which would then be threatened by differences in understanding and formulation. No doubt doctrinal concerns are involved here; they are not to be depreciated or denied. But doctrine, at least in the conventional sense (for example, the written confession to which we subscribe), is in the background here and is not what Paul has in mind primarily. Other factors, as we shall see, are highlighted as establishing and maintaining unity; other factors are seen to undermine unity.

Yet, having said that, all the more striking is the fact that “thinking” is very much at the center of the unity in view in this passage. Verse 2 speaks of being “like-minded” (literally, “minding the same thing”) and “intent on one purpose” (that is, having a common mind). The verb that Paul uses twice in this verse for thinking occurs next in verse 5, and that establishes a link which enables us to identify more exactly what, measured by our conventional usage, is the “nondoctrinal” thinking Paul has in view.

Verse 5 tells us that believers are to have the same mind-set or attitude as Christ. Here we encounter still another barrier to our understanding. Too often this verse is memorized and preached on together with the magnificent ode to Christ’s person and work in verses 6–11, but in isolation from verses 1–4. When this happens, the command of verse 5 is largely unintelligible: Paul exhorts us to have the mind of Christ and then proceeds directly to appeal to the permanent and awesome differences between Christ and ourselves. Where, we are perplexed to ask, in this awe-inspiring description can there possibly be a point of contact between his “mind” and ours?

But if we take verses 5-11 together with what immediately precedes, then we begin to get a hold on what Paul is saying. “This mind” (verse 5) is described in what precedes, not by what follows. In the ordering of the text, ethics come before doctrine, Christology serves to illustrate Christian conduct. And the point is one basic to New Testament teaching on the Christian life: Just in (the glorious uniqueness of Jesus as our Savior and Lord we find the point of comparison with ourselves. Just where he is not what we are and has done for us what we can’t do for ourselves, just there we find what we are to be and to do. Peter expresses this very concisely: “Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). The thinking that grounds the firm, unbreakable unity of the church, Paul wants us to understand, is not, say, our doctrinal grasp and correct theological formulations, important as they are, but the kind of “thinking” that led Jesus, being in “the form of God,” from heaven to the cross–that attitude which brought him, with the glory he had with the Father before the world was, to humble himself and become a servant. The thinking at issue here is the mentality or mind-set of the servant.

Humility is the Source of Unity

Verses 3 and 4 are essential for deepening our grasp of this thinking. What are the mortal enemies of unity and harmony in the church?–“selfish ambition” and “vain conceit.” What is the essence of the like-mindedness that promotes unity?–in one word, “humility.” Our resistance to the text at this point is our inclination to let it slip away as a truism. But there is nothing self-evident about humility. Humility is not a universal human value. In fact, in Paul’s day it was not a value at all. In the surrounding pagan world the word he uses here was a term of contempt, applied for the most part to slaves and suggesting mindless servility. According to Scripture, in contrast, humility is a distinctly Christian virtue, a “grace” that takes us to the heart of the gospel itself. Here Paul tells us it is the opposite of self-centeredness and pride and means “considering others better than yourselves.”

What is involved in this valuing of others above self? It is not, for instance, an insincere politeness that makes heroes of the weak or tolerates what is truly despicable; nor is it a false modesty that sees only superior gifts in others. Rather, in contrast to all forms of self-centeredness (in some instances masked by self-depreciation and feelings of inferiority, which are not humility but its very opposite), humility means being genuinely disposed to others, being able and willing to “look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (verse 4). In contrast to selfish ambition and vain conceit, humility means not setting myself up as a standard for others. It means an end in the church to all partisanship and all forms of individualism, “hearty” or otherwise. In fact, humility means valuing others with their concerns as more important, even when we know them to be weaker and less gifted. This self-renouncing humility, Paul wants us to know, more than anything else so far as our involvement is concerned, is the source of unity in the church.

Humility and Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The teaching of our text so far considered addresses all believers. But now we must see that it applies in a heightened way to elders and leaders in the church. Here we have to confront not simply another of our limited perceptions. but a massive and critical blind spot, one that can prove fatally disruptive in the life and work of the church.

Let me try to anticipate a rejoinder some of you may have at this point: “The differences in this General Assembly are doctrinal in nature; the divisions among us are matters of principle. But, as you yourself have pointed out, doctrinal error and its threat to Christian unity are not in view in Philippians 2. The text you have chosen and your remarks on it are not really to the point.”

But can we so easily isolate our doctrinal concerns from Paul’s concerns in our text? Must not the thinking he has in view be a part of our doctrinal thinking?

One thing church history shows clearly is that absolute uniformity in doctrine and strict conformity in theological thinking have never provided the basis for stable, enduring unity in the church. In fact, efforts to insure such uniformity have had just the opposite effect; they have tended to cause division. The course of church history demonstrates a virtual principle: Uniformity without room for diversity, destroys unity and produces the very dissension it wants to avoid.

We should expect this to be the case. The doctrinal grasp of any one denomination or any single generation of the church is always fragmentary, never finished. Faced with Scripture, our understanding of its “unsearchable riches,” its “manifold, multifaceted wisdom” (Eph. 3:8, 10) is necessarily incomplete. For our theology, too, it holds true that “we know in part” and “we see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:9, 12).

I am well aware that we are poised here, as with every central Christian truth, on a razor’s edge. I beg you, please don’t hear what I have just been saying as a veiled call to doctrinal indifference or a casual Biblicism. That we can least of all afford, surrounded as we are by an evangelical world rife with doctrinal poverty and confusion. No doubt, too, doctrinal differences result from another, darker factor than we have so far mentioned: the spirit of unbelief and error, ignorance that is culpable. But this is not the only factor, and our failure to recognize that is too often our blind spot.

Doctrinal orthodoxy (to be an orthodox Presbyterian) is a legitimate and important concern. Through the centuries of its maturity the church has been brought to an appreciation of the vital and essential role of its creeds and confessions. They function to promote and maintain the doctrinal stability necessary for the peace and unity of the church. But the confessional bond, however essential, must leave room for differences in perception and expression; it must not make every issue into an issue of confessionalism that, despite an ever so impeccable doctrine of Scripture, effectively supplants Scripture.

Humility and Openness to Diversity

In an important, still timely essay on “The Future of Calvinism,” written nearly a century ago, Herman Bavinck noted that an attractive feature of the Reformed tradition, one of its strengths, is the multiplicity of confessions it has produced, the diversity it allows at the confessional level. This openness to variety in doctrinal formulation, he maintained, results from the conviction that “To no individual or individual Church has it been given to assimilate truth in all its fulness. Truth is too rich and manifold for this.”

Clearly, then, the “mind” and thinking Paul is concerned for in our text is anything but irrelevant to our doctrinal thinking and the controversies that so often ensue. Humility demands, without abandoning or trivializing my own convictions, a genuine openness to the doctrinal insights others may have, even when they differ from my own. “Considering others better than ourselves” involves making every sympathetic effort to enter into their thinking, especially where they acknowledge a common confessional bond with us, allowing ourselves perhaps to be convinced by their Biblical grounds, and, where we are not convinced, being ready to consider that the problem may still lie with us and our views. “Looking not only to your own, but also to the interests of others” means, among other things, that there is room in the church for diversity, a place for various schools and different special interest groups, but that there is no place for these groups to become polarizing factions, or for a partisanship where one school looks down on or aims to exclude the others. It means that, while there is certainly no place in the church for favoritism and partiality, principles (doctrine) are not more important than people, and that how we deal with each other is itself also a doctrinal issue, a matter of principle.

By the same token, selfish ambition and vain conceit exist not only in their coarser, obvious manifestations. Like all “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19) they also come veiled in refined and “principled” forms; and these are particularly a snare for the gospel minister. That this danger can’t be too far from Paul’s mind comes out just a few verses earlier where he describes his opponents as those who “preach Christ out of selfish ambition” (1:17, see 1:15).

Essentially, selfish ambition and vain conceit mean that I consider myself better or more important than others, and the truly terrifying thing is that this can even happen in the name of the gospel. A special trap of the ministry is sclf-centeredness. On a greater or lesser scale we are in the limelight. More often than can be good for us, we are preoccupied with what we are saying, while others are giving us their attention. “Ministerial narcissism” is definitely an occupational hazard.

In all sorts of self-deceiving ways this self-centeredness disposes me (perhaps unknowingly) to seek authority in the church as a means to dominate others. At the level of doctrine it turns theology into an ideology which has (to have) the answer for everything. With that, since sound doctrine is left behind, theology becomes a self-centered enterprise, a sophisticated boasting over others, which can only see that my insights and formulations are on the line and others must conform to them. Openness to others and w hat they have to offer, the capacity to learn and to grow, is cut off. Perceived differences are intolerable because they challenge and threaten me and so have to be suppressed. And so, too, division and disorder in the church are just one inevitable result.

Humility Takes Us to the Heart of the Gospel

Selflessness, patterned after Christ’s own example, promotes the unity of the church; our self-centeredness is the source of disruption and disunity. As this fundamental truth begins to dawn on us, the bankruptcy of our own resources and pretensions is relentlessly exposed, and our crying need of God’s grace, which this communion table seals to us. is brought to light.

I have often heard it said that nothing is more difficult for the unbeliever to grasp, and for the believer to retain, than the truth that salvation is by faith and not by works, that we are saved not by our own efforts but by God’s grace. This is certainly right; the spirit of the Pharisee threatens to assert itself in each of us.

Yet as I look about in the church (I really don’t have to go farther than myself) and see so much self-centeredness and selfish ambition–now blatant, now refined–I wonder whether it is not equally, if not more, difficult for us to grasp and retain the truth of our text. But then I wonder whether these two difficulties are really all that far apart. At bottom are they not in fact one–two sides of the same basic difficulty sinners have?

For when I go back and re-read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, I discover, to my surprise, that the conclusion is not as I have been taught since childhood and so often heard it quoted: “This man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.” As important as this is and as surely as it takes us to the heart of the article on which the church stands or falls, here it is not the last word, but the next-to-last word. For Jesus the bottom line, the gospel bottom line, reads: “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14).

You can see, then, how, as we have already said, humility is a call to abandon ourselves to Christ. The essence of the humility that promotes unity in the church is faith, faith that can’t be parceled off from this humility and so knows and delights in the answer every lime it hears the question which Paul asks elsewhere, that same question which so perplexes and confounds all pride and self-centeredness: “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (1 Cor. 4:7).

With the question and its gospel answer, let us together take up the work of this Assembly and let us now together come to the Lord’s table.

Earlier that year, I’d graduated from college and moved away from the church where I’d been introduced to confessional presbyterianism; I had joined another PCA congregation but was still working out where my theological commitments lay. Ten years later, I have listened to nearly every Christ the Center episode produced. From it, I have learned more about Scripture, God, theology, church history, and many other topics; it has helped shape me as a person, Christian, church member, deacon, husband, and father.

Many of my favorite episodes have been historical:

• Presbyterian and Reformed Family Trees with Darryl Hart
• The Life and Thought of Herman Bavinck with Ron Gleason
• The Synod of Dorr’s Deliverance on the Sabbath with Danny Hyde
• Johannes Oecolampadius with Dianne Poythress
• Geerhardus Vos with Danny Olinger
• Episodes on The Westminster Assembly with Chad Van Dixhoorn
• J. Gresham Machen with Darryl Hart
• Luther and Media with Carl Trueman
• The Life and Ministry of Rev. John P. Galbraith with John Galbraith and Danny Olinger

The list of historical episodes could go on and on. Moreover, Christ the Center has helped me understand apologetics, union with Christ, Vos’s Biblical Theology, ecclesiology, and more.

I look forward to the next ten years of growth through the resources provided by the Reformed Forum. Thank you to Camden Bucey, Jeff Waddington, Jim Cassidy, Glen Clary, Jared Oliphint, Darryl Hart, Lane Tipton, and the many guests who have played an important role in my life from afar; I’m grateful for your selfless service to Christ’s church. I pray the Lord continues to bless your efforts.

I discovered @reformedforum’s flagship podcast Christ the Center during Thanksgiving break 2008 when Trueman blogged at Ref21 about his recent interview: https://t.co/URPk2ZYhFO. I’d graduated from college that year.

— Presbyterian History (@pres_history) November 18, 2018

In the case of both brothers there was the added bitterness of family dissension. Ebenezer’s favourite daughter, ‘Ailie,’ was married to a Secession minister, James Scott of Gateshaw, who sided with the Anti-burghers. With true chivalry Ebenezer refrained from increasing his daughter’s perplexity, but she decided between her father and her husband with admirable precision. When her husband returned from the Synod which excommunicated the Erskines, she met him at the manse-door with an anxious look. He came with bent head and in evident distress. ‘Well?’ she said. He was silent. She followed him into his study and repeated her query—‘Well?’ After a long pause he replied, ‘We have excommunicated them.’ You have excommunicated my father and my uncle! You are my husband, but never more shall you be minister of mine.’ She kept her word, and joined the Burgher congregation at Jedburgh. It is to her husband’s credit that he showed no resentment, and every Sunday morning mounted her on his pony, that she might ride to Jedburgh to profit by ministrations which preserved the loved traditions of the Portmoak Manse.

Quoted from The Erskines by Alexander Robertson MacEwen

Rev. Olinger has written a book on Vos that the Reformed Forum is publishing. You can order your copy today.

At times the minister might plan his marriage for the benefit of his work as well as for himself. S.A. Agnew relates his own case in whch his plan failed. He had become widowed at the age of 37 with a small son. Through inquiries he found that a Miss Jennie Moffatt of Marshall County, Miss. was a most eligible prospect, so he wrote her to ask her permission to correspond with a view toward marriage. Although he had not met her, he had been told by Rev. H.H. Robison that she was “good looking, intelligent, healthy and pious.” He therefore noted in his journal that “She is the most eligible person of whom I have any knowledge and it is my duty to make the effort.”

When some time elapsed without reply, he decided that the move had probably been in vain, “but I thought it was my duty to make a venture, and she is the only Associate Reformed girl in this region suited for the position of a minister’s wife.” Two weeks later, he received a tentative reply from Miss Moffatt agreeing to exchange correspondence. The young lady preferred a personal interview, but Agnew at first agreed only to an exchange of pictures. Later, he agreed to come to see her, and he arranged to visit through Rev. R.L. Grier, her pastor. The visit was only a partial success, since she did not turn him down but could not yet secure her “own consent” to marry him.

From the time of the visit, he came to believe that there was someone else involved, and the only surprise was when he learned that the person was his fellow minister Rev. R.L. (Robert Leroy) Grier, also a widower. Agnew had spent the night with Grier when he went to plead his cause with the young lady. Miss Jennie married Rev. Grier the following year, and following his death she became the third wife of Rev. David Pressly of Starkville. Agnew’s judgment on her eligibility was affirmed.

Quoted from The Second Century: A History of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church 1882–1982

Bryan did not limit his efforts for moral reform to the Chautauqua circuit alone. In marked contrast to his fellow Presbyterian, J. Gresham Machen, Bryan campaigned tirelessly within the church for social, political, and economic reform. “What is a church for,” he asked in 1909, “if it is not to stand for morality in all things and everywhere?” A prophet of personal and national piety, Bryan manifested unswerving loyalty to the nineteenth-century evangelical heritage that married revivalistic fervor and dedication to social reform. The church could not neglect its calling to christianize America.

Bryan was, in fact, a theologically conservative Social Gospeler. The social agenda that Bryan set before the church included “taxation, trust regulation, labor, the monetary system, peace and disarmament, temperance, anti-imperialism, woman’s suffrage.” “These questions are before us,” Bryan insisted. “They cannot be avoided; they must be settled, and church members must take their part in the settlement; ministers also must have a voice in this work.” Bryan served on the temperance committee of the Federal Council of Churches and the general committee of the Interchurch World Movement. In 1919 he praised the Federal Council of Churches–no group of conservatives–as “the greatest religious organization in our nation,” noting, “It gives expression to the conscience of more than seventeen million members of the various Protestant churches; its possibilities for good are limitless; its responsibilities are commensurate with its opportunities.” Though committed to traditional Christianity, Bryan willingly cooperated with those who differed from him theologically in order to further his crusade to build a Christian nation.

Bryan’s Christian faith and trust in the people buoyed his reforming zeal with an inexhaustible optimism. He believed he was born into “the greatest of all the races” in the “greatest of all lands” during the “greatest of all ages.” In 1911 he itemized the progress that marked his era’s superlative character: “Intelligence and intellectual capacity were increasing; educational standards were rising; moral standards were improving; people were studying ethics as never before; the spirit of brotherhood was abroad in the land; there was more altruism than ever before; the tide was running in favor of democracy; the peace movement was spreading; reason was asserting itself; and moral forces were taking control.” To Bryan only one conclusion was possible: ‘The morning light is breaking. Day is at hand."

The advent of the World War beclouded Bryan’s sunny forecast. The horror of Christians slaughtering one another with the blessing of their Christian nations damaged but did not destroy the Commoner’s faith. Christian civilization hid gone mad; Bryan set out to determine cause of its disease.

In “The Prince of Peace” Bryan had warned against the consequences of Darwinism but moderately allowed, “While I do not except the Darwinian theory I shall not quarrel with you about it; I only referred to it to remind you that it does not solve the mystery of life or explain human progress.” The war impelled Brian to reevaluate Darwiniansim as a possible cause of the hostilities.

The Presbyterian Controversy, pages 66 and 67.

The issue of a cultural bridge remains a critical feature for the OPC's identity. The absence of just such a bridge has proved to be the unexamined dimension to the ecumenical breakdown experienced by the OPC in its quest for union with other American Presbyterian bodies.

The 1975 attempt at union with the former Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod collapsed because the RPCES, a child of fundamentalism and the dissenting Reformed Presbyterian tradition, maintained a cultural vision that could not accept OP disenfranchisement. From the RPCES's point of view, OP disenfranchisement translated into the familiar criticisms that OPs were doctrinal nit-pickers and evangelistically dormant.

Along similar lines, the OP attempts at union with the Presbyterian Church in America collapsed in the 1980s. Behind the scenes, lay the PCA's cultural aspirations. These aspirations are very much at the center of the PCA's identity and rise out of an evangelical social vision of which a large, influential if not dominant national church is an indispensable part. Historically, the OPC has not shared this vision.

Photograph Copyright Kenneth Allen and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

Dr. Mark Matthews of Seattle often expressed the wish that the modernist conspiracy could be identified as a single body so that it might be destroyed by a single blow. He was quick to point out that the tactics of the liberals were not even honest. Instead of accepting the fundamental doctrines of the church, the liberals sought to destroy those doctrines, and to replace them with liberal concepts. But the manner in which they sought to bring about change was dishonest, perhaps even diabolical. The liberals did not openly declare to the church, "Your confession is very bad, it is hopelessly outdated and unscientific. If you do not change that confession, then we cannot conscientiously be a part of such a church." Rather, the liberals assumed positions as ministers and leaders in the church and then sought to undermine the church from within. The liberals were so successful in this fifth-column activity that in a short time those who believed wholeheartedly in the Scriptures and the church's subordinate standards were either silenced or removed from the church.

How did the liberals accomplish their purpose? By appealing to the need for "tolerance" and by accusing those who opposed them of being "narrow-minded." By this strategy many of the conservatives were put on the defensive. They suddenly became timid when they were accused of intolerance or narrow-mindedness. All their resistance and discernment and even moral standards suddenly melted away. Their response to such accusations was often something like this: "Well, we don't agree with the liberals, but after all we are all Christians and we must be tolerant. Intolerance is a terrible sin. Let us never be guilty of it." In this manner those evils that would destroy the soul, the church and the nation were welcomed into the seminaries, pulpits and courts of the church. Never did the forces of error have an easier or more sweeping victory.

Photograph by Another Believer/Seattle, distributed under CC BY-SA 3.0

You can listen on SermonAudio.

Some resources I used in preparation:

• A Quick First Glance at the Trinity Psalter Hymnal by Ligon Duncan
• Reflections On The 2018 Trinity Psalter Hymnal by Shane Lems
• Recovering Mother Kirk
• OPC General Assembly Minutes
• Between the Times
• Sing a New Song to the Lord: An Historical Survey of American Presbyterian Hymnals by James Rawlings Sydnor
• The New Presbyterian Hymnal by J. Gresham Machen
• What we can learn about Martin Luther from his hymn writing
• Origins of Calvin’s Theology of Music: 1536-1543 by Charles Garside, Jr.

The first half of our furlough year was spent in Rock Hill, S.C. and the rest in Richmond, Va. Rock Hill was the home of my mother’s family, the Barron clan. Oakland Avenue seemed to be lined with Barron residences. Mother was one of eight brothers and sisters, all of whom (except mother) lived on that street except two who were living in places less than 25 miles away. One brother (Uncle Archie) was a doctor in Charlotte. Uncle John was a banker at the Peoples’ National Bank and was highly admired and trusted because he was credited with saving that bank from going under during the Depression when almost all other banks failed. The other three brothers (Ed, Will, and Earl) ran the Rock Hill Hardware Company along with the three sons (Edwin, Billy, & Caldwell) of the oldest brother… making six “Mr. Barrons” in the store.¹

Aunt Lottie Barron was the only unmarried one. She taught history at the Winthrop Training School where I had the fall semester of my second year of high school. Student teachers from Winthrop College across the street were trained there, using us as guinea pigs. Aunt Lottie was a first-rate teacher, and an out-spoken critic of Hoover, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, an ardent supporter of Roosevelt and the “New Deal,” and was seldom lacking in a firm and incontrovertible opinion on nearly any subject. My other teachers were excellent too, and I remember the names of all of them: Miss Poag (English), Miss Rogers (mathematics). Miss Ingram (Latin), and Mr. Blakely (Physical Education.) Miss Rogers once told her student teacher before class that there was one boy who would figure out a shorter way to work a problem in algebra than the illustration in the text book. Sure enough, when I raised my hand to point this out, there was a knowing wink between the teachers and I learned of the prediction afterwards by the grapevine.

I tried going out for football practice a few times, but besides having no knowledge whatever of the game, I was too light-weight and quit after a day or so. I continued in scouting in the local troop and once I walked with another boy to Fort Mill and back to complete the fourteen mile hiking requirement. Father was away most of the fall working on his Th.D. at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond. Meanwhile we lived in a rented house right behind the Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church and only a block or so from Winthrop College. Now and then we attended that church but we usually went to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church down town. All the Barrons belonged there and as a rule every one of them was present. The session and deaconate was liberally sprinkled with their names. We sang the metrical version of the Psalms, as was the practice in that denomination. The pastor (Dr. Rogers) had served there more than 50 years and frequently repeated his soaring cadenzas of flowery oratory which the younger Barrons knew by heart and could imitate much to our amusement. Irene Barron (daughter of my Uncle Will, and now Mrs. Robert Lee Scarborough) was only a year or so older than I, so my sister Mardia and I especially enjoyed her company.

• Bethany
• Carmel
• Clover
• Ebenezer
• Hickory Grove
• Neely’s Creek
• Olivet
• Rock Hill
• Sharon
• Smyrna
• Tirzah
• York

Bethany

Bethany Church, in York Co., S. C., owes its origin to the introduction of hymns into the worship of the Presbyterian Churches in the vicinity of Kings Mountain. This innovation caused the withdrawal of a number of families from the Presbyterian Churches These sent Andrew Ferguson and John Miller to a meeting of the Associate Reformed Synod of the Carolinas, held at Black River, in Sumter Co., S. C., asking for supplies.

Rev. James Rogers preached for them for awhile at least. Sometime afterwards they petitioned for the stated labors of Rev. Wm. Dixon, a licentiate of the Associate Reformed body. For eighteen months or more they worshipped in a log cabin on the head of Crowder’s Creek on the skirts of Kings Mountain. The people worshiping at this point, and the people at Sharon and Carmel, united and called Rev. Wm. Dixon, who was ordained and installed at Sharon in the year 1797.

Bethany proper was organized at a stand near the place where the present church now is, in 1797. Bethany enjoyed the services of Mr. Dixon for about thirty-three years. For the most of this time it was in connection with the Associate Synod. After Mr. Dixon’s death, the church was supplied for a few years by Rev. Mr. Banks, but his abolition sentiments made him unpopular, and he returned to the North.

The next pastor of Bethany was Rev. R. C. Grier, D D., who was ordained and installed in June, 1841, and this pleasant and profitable relation continued for seven years. At which time Dr. Grier was called to the Presidency of Erskine College. In 1849 Rev. E. E. Boyce, D D., became pastor and this continued until 1885. During the long pastorate of Dr. Boyce, the church grew and prospered, and continued to be a great force for good in the community.

After Dr. Boyce resigned the church remained vacant for about two years, being regularly supplied with preaching by the Presbytery. In 1887 Rev. R. M. Stevenson, the present pastor, took charge of the church.

Carmel

Carmel, York Co., S. C., appears on the roll of the Associate Presbytery of the Carolinas before 1811, Rev. Wm. Dixon preached there from its organization probably until near his death. In a sketch of Sharon congregation by the Rev. R. A. Ross, D. D., it is said that, in the latter part of 1796 or the beginning of 1797. Sharon united with Bethany in the northern part of York Co., and with Carmel in the South, in a call to Rev. Wm. Dixon then recently come from Scotland, which call he accepted. In the same sketch it is said that, in 1826, Sharon, Tirzah and Carmel Hill united in a call to Rev. W. M. McElwee which he accepted. It disappears from the roll some time in the [18]30’s.

Clover

Clover is situated in York Co., S. C., about ten miles from Yorkville, the county seat, on the line of the Carolina and Northwestern Railway. The church was organized May 24th, 1893. For some time previous to the organization, Rev. R. M. Stevenson preached there one night in each month, and after the organization, Mr. Stevenson was called as pastor for one fourth his time, and was installed Nov. 23rd, 1893, and still continues as the pastor. Soon after the organization the people built a neat house of worship.

Ebenezer

Ebenezer Church was situated about three miles west of the present city of Rock Hill, in the present village of Ebenezer. It was just across the road from the present Presbyterian Church by that name. It is probable that there was some sort of an organization there in the way of an A. R. P. church during the Revolutionary War, as the Presbyterians date their organization from 1786, and the A. R. Church occupied the place first. It was made up originally of Burghers, Antiburghers, some Presbyterians, and some Covenanters, and was said to have been the only church in all the surrounding country. The wish to introduce the Watts Hymns by a part of the congregation caused trouble, which ended in the formation of a Presbyterian Church and some of the members also joined Tirzah Church.

Dr. Thos. Clark preached there some time as stated supply.

Rev. William Blackstocks was installed May 8th, 1794, in connection with Neely’s Creek, and demitted [sic] his charge in 1804. The records also show that he was again pastor from 1811 until July 12th, 1815. On April 3rd, 1820, Rev. Eleazer Harris was appointed stated supply at Neely’s Creek and Ebenezer, and must have continued to supply the church for a good many years Mr. Harris conducted a very successful High School at Ebenezer, which was largely patronized.

This church appears on the minutes in 1822, as having twenty families and thirty-two members, and the record says it was disorganized about 1828.

Hickory Grove

For many years previous to the organization of a church at this place, there had been occasional preaching by A. R. P. ministers at Unity, an undenominational chapel, one mile west of the place where the A. R. P. church now stands. With the building of a new railroad through York Co., a village sprang up, which was called Hickory Grove, and with the coming of this railroad came the organization of an A. R. P. church, on Dec. 6th, 1888. The church was organized by Rev. J. C. Galloway in the home of Mr. J. N. McDill, with twenty-nine members, all of them having been transferred from Smyrna. In time a large and handsome church was built. The church was supplied with preaching by Revs. J. H. Peoples, J. B. Cochran and H. R. McAulay. In the fall of 1891, it united with Smyrna in a call for the pastoral services of Rev. J. P. Knox, and he was installed in Dec. 1891 continuing pastor until May, 1899. In March, 1900, Rev. J. L. Oates was installed pastor of Hickory Grove and Smyrna and still continues as pastor. At this time it has grown to be a large and flourishing congregation.

Within a year from this the elders of this church are: J. N. McDill, Moses White, J. W. Castles, J. C. Wylie, J. N. McGill and J. R Mitchell.

Neely’s Creek

The congregation of Neely’s Creek was organized about 1790. On the 8th of June, 1794, Rev. William Blackstock was settled as pastor of Steel Creek, Ebenezer and Neely’s Creek.

This relationship continued until 1804. The churches constituting the charge of Rev. Blackstock were rent by the McMullan-Dixon difficulty and Neely’s Creek, according to Rev. R. Lathan, left the Associate Reformed Church and went into the Associate Presbytery. During its connection with the Associate Church, Neely’s Creek was ministered to by Revs. William Dickson, Abraham Anderson, D. D., Thomas Ketchin, John Mushat, A. Whyte, and supplies sent occasionally from the North.

In August, 1847, Neely’s Creek was organized as an Associate Reformed Church. On the 26th of July, 1849, Rev. R. F. Taylor was ordained and installed pastor of Neely’s Creek. He served until 1851. In the fall of 1853 Rev. L. McDonald was installed as pastor for half time. Rev. McDonald continued as pastor until the fall of 1870.

At a meeting of First Presbytery on 4th Sept., 1871, the united congregations of Neely’s Creek and Union presented a call to Rev. C. B. Betts. He was installed on 3rd of Nov., 1871. This pastorate ended in the fall of 1889. After a vacancy of three years Rev. D. G. Caldwell was installed as pastor. Rev. Caldwell resigned in 1894 and Rev. Oliver Johnson was ordained and installed Oct 18, 1894. The first elders of Neely’s Creek were, Alexander Harberson, Samuel Lusk and Thos. Spencer.

They were succeeded by Thomas Wylie, John Campbell, William Campbell and Jackson Spencer. Since the organization in 1847 the following persons have been inducted into the office of ruling elders in Neely’s Creek congregation: In 1847, Thos. Boyd, John Roddy, William Wylie and Samuel Wylie. In 1849, A. Templeton Black, David Roddy and Jonathan McFadden. In 1857, Matthew S. Lynn. In 1861, David C. Roddy. In 1868, D. T. Leslie and John T. Boyd. In 1874, J. R. Patton, W. W. White and A. J. Walker.

The following constitute the eldership at the writing, 1903: Rev. Oliver Johnson, pastor. Elders, D. T. Leslie, W. White, A. J. Walker, J. T. Ferguson, T. M. Allen, W. S. Leslie, G. A. Gettys, W. S. Boyd, D. F. Leslie.

Olivet

Olivet church was situated in York Co. S. C., near where the town of McConnellsville now is.

It was organized by the First Presbytery in 1843, although there was preaching there before that time. Rev. R. A. Ross, D. D., was installed pastor in 1843. Dr. Ross had charge of Olivet in connection with Sharon and Smyrna, and the joint service of installation was held at Sharon on Dec. 6th, 1843.

It seems that the church building there was for the convenience of the different denominations living in the vicinity, and many of the friends and supporters of the congregation, and who attended on Dr. Ross’ ministry were not members of the A. R. Church. Dr. Ross continued to preach there until after the Civil War. The war and its results fell very heavily on that community, and after the war the few remaining told Dr. Ross that they were obliged to let him discontinue preaching there.

The members were absorbed in the surrounding churches, and it ceased to be an A. R. church.

Rock Hill

In July, 1895, Mr. A. S. Rogers, then a student in Erskine Seminary, was sent to Rock Hill, S. C., by the Board of Home Missions, to open a mission in that city. He found sixteen members of the A. R. P. Church there, and commenced work. Armory Hall was rented and the first service was held July 7th The attendance and outlook was encouraging from the beginning, and at a meeting of the First Presbytery, held at Clover, S. C., Sept. 30th of the same year, the Presbytery appointed a commission to organize a church there, and also appointed a committee consisting of Revs. Oliver Johnson, C. E. McDonald and Hon. D. E. Finley to co-operate with a committee of the congregation in raising funds and in building a house of worship. On Nov. 19th, 1895, Revs. J. S. Moffatt, J. T. Chalmers and elders Joseph Wylie and Matthew White organized a church of twenty-six members with W. F. Strait, M. D., R. T. Wright and J. M. Lauridge, elders, and L. Black and J. L. White deacons. At the close of the Seminary in June, 1896, Rev. A. S. Rogers, who had completed the course, and been licensed at the spring meeting, was returned to Rock Hill, and appointed to the field for a term of five years. Mr. Rogers canvassed the church for funds to erect a building, and was successful in raising them. The present beautiful and commodious building was begun in 1897, and completed in 1898. The building is of pressed brick, with granite trimmings, and fine architectural effects. It has had a steady and rapid growth, and now has about one hundred and fifty members, and bids fair to become one of our strongest churches. On Dec. 19th, 1901, Rev. A. S. Rogers was installed as pastor, and continues until the present time.

Sharon

Sharon church is situated in the western part of York Co., S. C., and was organized by Rev. James Rogers in the summer of 1796. Its origin is due to the introduction of Watts’ Hymns into Bullock’s Creek and Beersheba Presbyterian churches. Owing to this innovation, a number of families left these churches and were organized into an Associate Reformed Church. In the winter of 1796 Sharon united with Bethany in the northern part of the county and Carmel in the southerın part of the county in a call to Rev. William Dixon, recently came from Scotland. This call he accepted, and he was ordained and installed at Sharon June 5th, 1797.

About 1804 or 1805 Mr. Dixon, the pastor of Sharon, and Rev. Peter McMullen, withdrew from the Associate Reformed Church, owing to the position of the Church on frequent communion, and the dispensing with days of tasting and thanksgiving in connection with the sacrament, and Sharon went with its pastor.

Very soon after, probably in 1805, this church and some others were organized into the Associate Presbytery of the Carolinas. Mr. Dixon continued to be pastor until 1824 or 1825.

In 1826 it united with Tirzah and Carmel in a call to Rev. Wm. M. McElwee, which he accepted, and was installed in April, 1827, and continued pastor until 1832.

During the latter part of his pastorate the church was much vexed and torn by the controversy on slavery and Free Masonry, and Mr. McElwee, feeling that his ministry here was unfruitful, demitted his charges and removed to Pennsylvania, and became a minister of the U. P. Church, where he died a few years ago.

About 1835 Sharon was again organized into an A R. Church, tradition says by Rev. Thos. Ketchin, who had recently come over from the Associate Church. The church was supplied with preaching by various ministers until Rev. R. A. Ross was called by Sharon, in connection with Smyrna and Olivet, both in York Co. He was ordained and installed in Dec. 1843, and continued pastor until 1893. This was a long and remarkable pastorate of fifty years.

The Synod met with this church in Oct. 1893, and joined with the congregation in celebrating with appropriate exercises the semi-centennial of this long and useful pastorate. Dr. Ross was too feeble to attend these exercises, and died shortly after, on Nov. 25th, 1893.

The congregation was vacant until 1896, being supplied principally by Revs. W. S. Castles, W. A. M. Plaxco and J. E. Johnson On July 23rd, 1896, Rev. J. S. Grier was installed, and continues pastor at the present time. The session of Sharon, at the present time, consists of Samuel Blair, J. P. Blair, R. A. Gilfillan, W. M. Ross, W. S. Love, R H. G. Caldwell, S. A. Mitchell, J. H. Shever, S. A. Gilfillan, W. A. Maloney and J. L. Rainey.

Smyrna

About the year 1832, William McGill, Esq., removed from Crowder’s Creek, York Co., to King’s Creek, York Co. About the same time three brothers, by the name of Black, moved into the same neighborhood from Diamond Hill, Abbeville Co.

Mr. McGill had been a member of the Associate Church of Bethany, S. C., and the Blacks of the Associate Reformed Church at Diamond Hill, and they agreed to join forces and procure some preaching. At the request of these men, Rev. Thos. Ketchin preached at the home of Mr. McGill some time in the year 1834. This was the first movement toward the organization of a church. Soon afterwards, seven families living in the northern outskirts of Sharon congregation, united with Mr. McGill and the Blacks, and built a stand near where the present church stands, probably in 1834, and there preaching was held.

In the year 1835, Mr. John Darwin, a generous member of the Presbyterian church, donated the land or which the present church now stands, and a small building was erected. During the early years of this church it was supplied with preaching by Revs. Thos Ketchin, Eleazer Harris, John and David Pressly, Joseph McCreary, L. C. Martin, R. C. Grier and J. H. Boyce.

It was formally organized in 1843, by Rev. R. C. Grier.

In the same year it united with Sharon and Olivet, in a call to Rev. R. A. Ross, and he was installed in Dec. 1843. In 1852, Dr. Ross resigned, and soon after Smyrna united with Sardis, in Union Co., in a call to Rev. J. R. Castles, and he was installed in 1854. During the pastorate of Mr. Castles, a larger and more substantial building was erected. Mr. Castles demitted his charge in 1862, on account of ill health, demitted this charge in 1868, and removed to Arkansas by Revs. Robt. Lathan and R. A. Ross.

In 1863, Rev. Monroe Oates was installed, and demitted this charge in 1868, and removed to Arkansas.

From 1868 to 1871, the church was supplied chiefly by Rev. Robt. Lathan and R. A. Ross.

In 1871, Rev. R. A. Ross was installed for half his time, and continued pastor until the latter part of 1890 or early part of 1891, when on account of age and infirmity, he resigned.

In 1873, the church was burned by an incendiary, and another church was built on the same site. During the pastorate of Dr. Ross, Hickory Grove congregation was organized out of a part of the membership of Smyrna.

Rev. J. P. Knox was installed pastor of Smyrna and Hickory Grove Dec. 3rd, 1891, and continued pastor until May, 1899. Rev. J. L. Oates was installed over the united charge of Smyrna and Hickory Grove in March, 1900, and still continues the pastor.

During the lifetime of Smyrna, it has had a steady growth; its members are liberal and well grounded in the faith, and while it has lost a great many by removals at various times, yet it still ranks as one of the best country congregations in the Synod.

The elders at Smyrna at present are: Thomas McGill, R. M. Plaxco, J. B. Whitesides, W. M. Whitesides, J. A. McGill, J. E. Castles, and J. W. Quinn.

Tirzah

Some time previous to 1800, there was a preaching station at Joseph Miller’s, several miles west of where Tirzah church now stands, and there was also an A. R. church at Ebenezer. The attempt to introduce Watts Hymns into the Ebenezer church caused trouble, and those members in Ebenezer who would have nothing but the Psalms, united with these Associates who worshipped at Joseph Miller’s, and organized Tirzah congregation, and located it seven miles south east of Yorkville, on the Yorkville and Landsford road.

The organization was effected about 1803. Rev. Peter McMullen is said to have presided at the organization, and the first elders were: Joseph Miller, Thos. Barron, Samuel Barron and Charles McElwain.

The first church was built of logs. Revs. Wm. Dixon, Eleazer Harris, John Cree, and Isaac Grier, preached as supplies at Tirzah. In 1827, Rev. Wm. M. McElwee was installed pastor of Tirzah and Sharon, and continued until 1832, when he demitted his charge and went North on account of the slavery question. A new house of worship was erected in 1827.

Rev. Thos. Ketchin preached there after Mr. McElwee left. It continued to be an Associate Church until 1834, at which time it came into the A. R. Presbytery of thie Carolinas and Georgia.

Rev. Laughlin McDonald was pastor from Dec. 1839, until Oct., 1851. Rev. S. C. Millen was pastor from 1852 until 1855. In 1857, the church was moved to a more central location, two miles north of where it stood, and was located where the present church now stands.

In 1859, Rev. Robert Lathan, D. D., was installed over Tirzah and Yorkville, and continued until 1884, when he was called to a chair in Erskine Seminary. Rev. J. C. Galloway, D. D., was installed in 1884, and demitted [sic] his charge in 1893. Rev. B. H. Grier was installed in 1894, and resigned in 1901.

A few years ago, a beautiful and modern church building was erected, which is an ornament to the community. Tirzah, like many of our country congregations, has been very much weakened by the removal of many of its members to the towns and cities, but it is still a hale and vigorous congregation. Since Rev. B. H. Grier left, in 1901, this church has been vacant.

York

The church at Yorkville, S. C., was organized by the First Presbytery in the fall of 1853.

Soon after its organization Rev. S. C. Millen, D. D., was installed pastor, and continued his ministry until 1857, when he resigned. For two years the congregation remained vacant. In the spring of 1859 Rev. Robert Lathan assumed the pastoral charge, and continued until the fall of 1884, when he was called to a chair in Erskine Theological Seminary. Rev. J. C. Galloway, D. D., was called in Sept., 1885, and remained until Dec. 31st, 1893, when he resigned to take charge of Gastonia and Pisgah in North Carolina. The church was vacant until August 17th, 1894, when Rev. B. H. Grier was in stalled, and he remained until July 3rd, 1901, when he removed to Ora, in Laurens Co., S. C

Since that time the church has been vacant for two years, but Rev. W. C. Ewart has recently accepted a call there and will soon be installed.

Their report the next year listed the “lack of representation of women in the Church” as a contributor to the conflict.

In his paper “For Church and Country: The Fundamentalist-Modernist Conflict in the Presbyterian Church”, Bradley Longfield discusses the events that followed:

In addition to approving the report, the Assembly also, at least partly in response to the Special Commission’s findings, commissioned a study on “Causes of Unrest Among Women of the Church.” In 1923 the women’s missionary organizations in the church, which women had founded and directed, were merged with two new denominational boards, the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of National Missions. The frustration and anger among some women in the wake of this move helped inspire the General Assembly’s efforts to address women’s unrest in the late 1920s. Indeed, disagreement about the role of women in the church was one of the many issues that aggravated the fundamentalist/modernist conflicts in the church. Though most Presbyterians affirmed the importance of women’s public contributions to the church, by the late 1920s, as Margaret Bendroth has argued, “the defense of orthodox Calvinism became in part a masculine stand against the ‘feminine’ heart religion of the nineteenth century.”

In 1920 the church had considered, and defeated, a move to ordain women as elders. In 1928, following the results of the 1926 report, the Assembly appointed a committee of fifteen leading women to meet with denominational officials to discuss women’s issues in the church. This resulted in an overture before the church in 1930, largely advanced by denominational officials seeking to address women’s anger at the loss of their missionary agencies, to ordain women as elders and pastors. Though the effort to ordain women as pastors failed, women were approved to serve as elders.

Several significant fundamentalists were vocally opposed to the ordination of women, seeing this effort as one further move to accommodate the faith to modern culture. Clarence Macartney, for example, claimed that these proposals resulted from a “hankering and hungering after the fleshpots of this present world,” and a desire for “a new church and a new gospel.” “Many of the subtle and dangerous and seductive heresies and perversions and distortions of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he continued, “have sprung from the brain of women.” Likewise, Mark Matthews, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Seattle, understood the “present agitation to feminize the session and the pulpit” as the effort of a chosen few, such as Robert E. Speer, Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions. Speer, a theological and ecclesiological moderate who had played a major role in the Special Commission of 1925, confirmed many conservatives’ worst fears about his theological orthodoxy in his outspoken support of women’s ordination.

The PCUSA would first ordain female ruling elders in 1930 and female ministers 1956.

Presbyterianism in America comes from two primary strains. The American tradition starting with the independent Presbytery of Philadelphia in 1706 (a tradition continued today by the PCUSA, PCA, EPC, and OPC) and the Scottish tradition, with connections to Seceder and Covenanter Scottish churches, starting in various forms throughout the 18th century. The Scottish tradition remains today in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP); of the two, the RPCNA has the most similarity to the Scottish Presbyterian form of worship and covenanting principles.

However, the history of Scottish Presbyterianism in America is more complex than these two denominations. The modern PCUSA and PCA merged, at some point, with significant portions of the Scottish denominations. The RPCNA and ARP have rich and tangled histories that lead to the denominations we have today.

Here is a brief overview of the timeline of Scottish Presbyterianism in America. For a more full picture, consult an article called American Presbyterian Churches—A Genealogy, 1706-1982 by Russell E. Hall.

The first the Reformed Presbytery was started by Scottish Covenanters in 1774. Six years later, the majority of the Covenanters united with the Associate Presbyterian Church (the Seceders) to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

In 1798, a remnant of the Covenanters re-organized their presbytery and in 1809 formed a Synod.

In 1833, the Reformed Presbyterian Church split into “New Light” and “Old Light” synods. The “New Light” Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod was more open to voting and holding public office (despite the USA not recognizing the kingship of Jesus). In 1965, they would merge with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (the renamed Bible Presbyterian Church—Columbus Synod) to form the RPCES; the RPCES was, in turn, received into the PCA in 1982.

The Old Light Synod would become what is now the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.

The Associate Presbytery was organized in 1753 by Americans in the Seceder tradition (specifically Anti-Burger Seceders). As mentioned above, in 1782, the majority merged with the Reformed Presbytery to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. A minority group in Pennsylvania continued as the Associate Presbytery. After a second presbytery was organized in Kentucky, they formed in a Synod in 1801.

In 1858, the majority of the Associate Church joined the Associate Reformed Church to form the United Presbyterian Church of North America. The UPCNA remained Scottish in character, but would merge with the mainline Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1958 to form the United Presbyterian Church in the USA. A remnant of the Associate Church remained until uniting with the RPCNA in 1969.

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church created in 1782 would constitute a General Synod in 1803. The Synod of the South, geographically divided from those in Pennsylvania and New York, withdrew in 1822. The northern synods united with the Associate Church in 1858, and the Synod of the South became the sole remaining Associate Reformed group; in 1844, they would receive the Associate Presbytery of the Carolinas (which had left the Associate Church in 1840 over the slavery question). In 1935, they took the name of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and continue by that name to this day.

My great-grandmother’s family, the Barrons, were old ARP stock in York County. One of my historical interests is understanding the world my great-grandmother grew up in a century ago in York County. I was interested to read in her father’s obituary that the local PCUS minister co-officiated his funeral with his own ARP minister. I’m still unclear on the relationship between my great grandfather Alexander Barron and the PCUS pastor Alexander Martin, but I was able to track down two biographical sketches of Rev. Martin:

Alexander Martin was born in Christiansburg, Virginia, April 23, 1871, the son of the Reverend Roger Martin and Margaret Tomlin Martin. His father was pastor of Providence during the years 1888-1892, and he was intimately associated with the church all his life; often he returned to preach on special occasions. Alex Martin, as he was familiarly known, was graduated from Davidson College in 1895 and from Columbia Theological Seminary in 1901. In that same year he married Miss Eudora Vick of Selma, North Carolina. After being licensed and ordained by Charleston Presbytery, he assumed his first pastorate at Summerville, South Carolina. He was pastor of the Westminster Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, from 1905 to 1908, and left to assume pastorate of the First Presbyterian Church in Rock Hill, South Carolina. In that city he stayed for the rest of his ministerial career. In 1913 the Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church was organized out of the First Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Martin was called to become the pastor. In addition to his duties in this large and active church, Dr. Martin devoted much time to a number of educational and benevolent institutions in the Synod of South Carolina. In 1915 he was awarded the degree of D.D. by the Presbyterian College of South Carolina. He died in Mooresville, North Carolina, on October 24, 1931.

Source: A History of Providence Presbyterian Church, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by Louise Barber Matthews (1967)

Alexander Martin was born in Christiansburg, Virginia, on April 23, 1871. He was the son of a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend Roger Martin, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and of Margaret Tomlin, of Richmond, Virginia. John B. Martin, his grandfather, was a portrait painter. William Martin, his great-grandfather, was a purveyor to the English army in Ireland and came to America in 1817.

Alexander Martin received his early education in the country schools of his day and at the Ebenezer Academy, York County, South Carolina. Later he attended Davidson College, where he earned two degrees: Bachelor of Arts in 1895 and Master of Arts in 1898. He was graduated from Columbia Theological Seminary in 1901. He was licensed and ordained by Charleston Presbytery at the time he assumed the pastorate in the Summerville Presbyterian Church, 1901. In 1905 he accepted the call to the Westminster Church, Charlotte, North Carolina, when he remained three years. In 1908 he was named pastor of the First Church, Rock Hill. When the Oakland Avenue Church came into being in 1913, with Doctor Martin as the organizing pastor, he was asked to become the first pastor of the new congregation. From this time until 1931 he served with distinction in this position.

Presbyterian College conferred on him the Doctor of Divinity degree in 1915. He was Moderator of the Synod of South Carolina in 1923. He was a trustee of the following schools: Davidson College, Presbyterian College, and Winthrop College. He was a commissioner to four meetings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U. S.

He was married on November 20, 1901, to Eudora Vick, of Selma, North Carolina. He and Mrs. Martin had no children, but they educated and partially reared a number of nieces and nephews.

Doctor Martin died at Mooresville, North Carolina, on October 24, 1931.

Source: A History of the First Presbyterian Church of Rock Hill, South Carolina: 1869–1969 by William Boyce White, Jr. (1969)

Photo of the Rock Hill Academy building by Bill Fitzpatrick - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

The Presbyterian Church in America reflects the widest conceivable spectrum of differences within a basic commitment to the Reformed faith which is common to all—ministers and elders alike.

As I have traveled around the Church during the past year, I have noticed that we seem to be struggling to perfect our “image” before the watching world. But I have also become convinced that when the image has been perfected, it will be quite unique among denominations of Reformed, conservative and evangelical persuasion.

We now have congregations operating in all four corners of this nation and in many places in between. We don’t all speak “Southern” by any means. Our congregations include some that speak Japanese, Korean, and Spanish. And that brings me to the most important thing I want to report.

We are Reformed in theology in the best sense of John Calvin’s passion to offer his heart to God “promptly and sincerely.” Everyone one of us has declared that we believe the Westminster standards best contain and summarize the doctrine of holy Scripture.

But within the framework of that commitment there is the potential for wide diversities of application and some of those are developing in the PCA. This is perhaps the most striking thing I have observed this past year. We are still struggling to perfect our “image,” perhaps, because that image is not going to be that of any particular geographical region, or mood, or size. The body is not one member, but many members. The PCA is Manhattan and Fort Lauderdale and Kosciuko. It is robed choirs and color TV and hand-clapping exuberance.

It is churches with ten commissioners to this General Assembly and churches with one. And hand cannot say to the foot, “I have no need of thee.” This I have seen in the past year.

A couple of years ago when a group of commissioners far, far removed from the deep South attended a General Assembly for the first time, one of them was heard to say, after a particularly spirited debated, “I don’t know whether we belong to this crowd or not!” But there no such thing as “this crowd” as the representation of the PCA, and that is my point.

The heart of the PCA beats in the inner city in Newark, and over the radio in Chattanooga, and in a converted Butler build in Olathe, and in a dormitory bull session at Reformed Theological Seminary.

This I have seen this year. The PCA is here to stay. And I am privileged to be part of it. As are you. So let us give thanks to Almighty God and take courage and go forward.

On June 11, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church turned 82. On that day, the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union, which had been formed the year before by a small group of PCUSA members who desired a biblically reformed church, met for the last time.¹

You can learn more about the foundtion of the OPC in Darryl Hart and John Muether’s Fighting the Good Fight: A Brief History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Edwin Rian’s The Presbyterian Conflict, and Robert Churchill’s Lest We Forget: A Personal Reflection on the Formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, all published by the OPC Committee on the Historian.²

A few years ago, Dr. Hart, who did doctoral studies on Machen, taught a Sunday school class on Machen’s role in these events. His book on Machen is also in invaluable resource.

Last year, I prepared an interactive timeline of the events of the Presbyterian Conflict leading to the formation of the OPC. The story is also outline by someone outside the OPC in Bradley Longfield’s The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates.

The OPC digitized issues of the Presbyterian Guardian, an independent magazine published by conservative presbyterians from 1935-1979; the issue just after the formation of the OPC is an enlighting original source on the events. The OPC has recently published old minutes of its General Assemblies online; the minutes from the first are here.

Cleanliness Linked With Godliness

The most sacred hour of your religious life–the communion season–should be free from any lurking fear. Yet isn’t there that feeling concerning the common cup among your congregation?

If in your church you had in use the beautiful

Sanitary Individual Communion Service

here illustrated and described, your congregation would appreciate this forward step. These clean, beautiful, individual cups would add to the dignity and solemnity of the celebration.

An Inexpensive Service

The Sanitary Communion Outfit Company provides a tasteful and inexpensive service; the noiseless, highly polished wooden trays for the cups being in keeping with the church furniture. The outfit adds to the beauty, solemnity and repose of the communion service.

A Conservator of Health

Make your communion service not alone an uplifting of the spirit of your community, but a real conservator of the health of your people.

Send for free descriptive booklet with catalogue and prices.

NOTE–In many States the law now forbids the use of the single cup at the communion service. It should not be necessary to await this in your own locality. The old style is unclean and unsanitary. Many thoroughly good Christians have refrained from partaking of communion for this very reason. If you have not yet adopted the modern, sanitary communion cup, let this be one of your first forward steps in 1922.

FUNDAMENTALISTS ADOPT OLD CREED

Presbyterian Church of America Votes 300-Year-0ld Westminster Doctrine.

ELIMINATES AMENDMENTS

Most of Those Made in 1903 Removed—Pre-Millennialists, Balked, Talk of a Split.

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 13—After nearly four hours of debate, during which references to advisability of a factional split in the new organization were heard, the Presbyterian Church of America late today completed its credal framework.

Blocking repeated attempts of the pre-millennialist wing to have inserted in the church constitution a declaration to “safeguard” this view, the second General Assembly of the militant fundamentalist organization adopted, with certain changes, the 300-year-old Westminster confession of faith, which is the doctrinal standard of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. It was from this denomination that the new organization split off last June on the ground that the parent church was “apostate.”

This old creed of Presbyterianism was adopted by a vote of fifty-seven to twenty, on a roll-call after it had been shorn of most of the amendments made to it in 1903—amendments which have been attacked by some as “compromising” the “Calvinistic” tenor of the confession of faith.

Committee’s Report Accepted The General Assembly established its doctrinal basis by adopting the report of the committee on the constitution, headed by the Rev. Dr. Ned B. Stonehouse of Westminster Theological Seminary, who, with the Rev. Dr. J. Gresham Machen, edits the militant Fundamentalist magazine, The Presbyterian Guardian.

During the heated debate over inserting a declaration on pre-millennialism in the constitution, both Dr. Machen and the Rev. Carl McIntire, pastor of the Collingswood, N. J., Presbyterian Church, suggested that if certain courses were followed an outright schism in the young organization might be advisable. Dr. Machen expressed the hope that this would not be necessary.

The Stonehouse committee, presenting its doctrinal recommendations, announced that it had carefully considered changes made in the credal standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America since 1903, and that “it is unanimous in recommending to the General Assembly the adoption of the confession of faith and catechism in the form which they possessed before these changes were made, with the following two exceptions:

1. “We recommend the retention of the change which was made in Chapter XXII, Section 3, by the omission of the sentence, ‘Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority’; and
2. “We recommend the retention of the change made in Chapter XXV, Section 6, in so far as it involved the elimination of the words: ‘But is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, and all that is called God.’ If this recommendation is adopted. Section 6 will read as follows: ‘There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof.’ In connection with this recommendation it may be well to point out that questions of copyright seem to make it advisable not to use certain material added in recent years.”

Statement of 1903 Criticized

The recommendation above, the committee stated, involved “the adoption of the Westminster confession of faith and catechism without the following changes, which were made by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America in 1903:

1. “Chapters XXXIV and XXXV of the confession of faith with their preamble. (Chapters headed ‘Of the Holy Spirit’ and ’Of the Love of God and Missions.’)
2. “The declaratory statement of 1903.
3. “The revision of Chapter XVI, Section 7. In the unrevised form, the section reads: ‘Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from the heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.”

Dr. Machen had characterized the declaratory statement of 1903 as “the most serious step in the downward march of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.”

The Rev. Milo Jamison of Los Angeles, on behalf of the Presbytery of California, led the determined fight for inclusion in the confession of an amendment guaranteeing pre-millennialists security for their views in the church. Supported by the Rev. Mr. McIntire and others, he sought to show that the Westminster standards failed to recognize their doctrine that Christ will come to earth a second time to usher in a thousand-year era of peace, held to be mentioned in the Book of Revelation, before the last judgment.

In 1957 Christianity Today editor Dr. J. Marcellus Kik sent R. J. Rushdoony, then known primarily as a promising young critic of modernism and secular education, a letter announcing the launch of a new venture. At the time, Rushdoony had not yet abandoned the mainline Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for J. Gresham Machen’s separatist Orthodox Presbyterian Church. If Rushdoony had done so, Kik would likely have never reached out to him because, as [Carl] Henry later recalled of his editorial strategy, "We solicited articles from evangelicals in mainline denominations, not because we were precommihted to ecumenism but because writers in the independent church might give the magazine an anti-ecumenical cast that would hinder our outreach."

We sing of our neighbor, co-worker and friend,
Whose work for her Master has known no end.
Orphans, and mish kids, and prisoners grim
Give thanks for this friend who cares so for them.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…

Tho’ memories of Congo, her home, beckoned warm,
A mish-kid type preacher with persuasive charm
At the last minute took matters in hand,
And they sailed together to Morning Calm Land.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
And they sailed together to Morning Calm Land.

First to their children, Alice and Barron
And later to Margaret and David, their son,
She taught the three-R’s and Bible too,
Whilst serving up tea as all moksa’s¹ wives do.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
Whilst serving up tea as all moksa’s wives do.

Now scattered around in this old world today
Are dozens of women and men who would say
The Child’s Catechism they learned from Aunt Dot,
Her legacy to them, tho’ much else they forgot.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
Her legacy to them, tho’ much else they forgot.

Oh, many’s the floor upon which she has sot,
In churches, and manses, some cold and some hot.
She’s counseled young wives, and taught their young,
And told countless ajumas² of Jesus, God’s Son.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
And told countless ajumas of Jesus, God’s Son.

Since ‘48, Chonju’s been her haunt.
Joe’s become “bishop”, she, his confidant.
Through church splits, evacuations, and sep’rations long,
A model missionary - loyal and strong.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
A model missionary - loyal and strong.

Her memory for sermons is phenomenal,
And kept us from resorting too oft’ to the barrel.
Her pen produced columns for “Thought of the Times”,
And for special occasions wrote poems and rhymes.
Dor-o-thy… Dor-o-thy…
And for special occasions wrote poems and rhymes.

From Dragon’s Head Ridge to Montreat’s mountains blue
Now goes our dear Dorothy and Bishop Joe, too.
Tho’ those of us here’ll be bereft of her charms,
Her gran’chillun will welcome her with wide open arms.
Dor-o-thy…Dor-o-thy…
Her gran’chillun will welcome her with wide open arms.

• 1947: R.J. Rushdoony, PCUSA missionary at the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, reads his first Cornelius Van Til Book: The New Modernism.¹
• May 12, 1958: Rushdoony received into the OPC.² He ministers to an OP congregation in Santa Cruz, CA until 1962.³
• 1959: Rushdoony publishes By What Standard Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers.
• 1965: Rushdoony forms Chalcedon Foundation in Los Angeles.⁴ Greg Bahnsen starts writing for Chalcedon while a student at Westmont College.
• 1966: Reformed Theological Seminary founded by conservatives in the Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS).
• October 1, 1970: Rushdoony leaves the OPC.⁵
• 1972: Cornelius Van Til retires as professor of Apologetics at WTS.⁶
• 1973: Rushdoony’s “The Institutes of Biblical Law” published.⁷
• 1973: Bahnsen graduates with M.Div and ThM from Westminster Theological Seminary. ThM Thesis published in 1977 as “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”.⁸
• 1973: Gary North (Rushdoony’s future son-in-law) and Greg Bahnsen join staff of Chalcedon Foundation.⁹
• May 19, 1973: Joe Morecraft received into the Westminster Presbytery, an independent presbytery of former PCUS congregations that would later join the PCA.¹⁰
• December 4-7, 1973: First general assembly of the PCA.¹¹
• 1974: Rushdoony received by the Anglican Church of America.³
• July 20, 1975: Bahnsen ordained by Presbytery of Southern California of the OPC (OPC Ministerial Directory) after receiving some resistance.⁹
• 1975: Gary North starts Institute for Christian Economics. ⁹
• 1976: Twenty-eight year old Greg Bahnsen joins faculty at RTS Jackson while working on his PhD. Students over the next three years include James Jordan, Gary Demar, and Kenneth Gentry.¹²
• 1976: John Frame offers a critical review of Institutes of Biblical Law in the Westminster Theological Journal.¹³
• June 1978: Greg Bahnsen graduates from University of Southern California with a Ph.D. in Philosophy.¹⁴
• 1978: Meredith Kline’s “Comments on a New-Old Error: A Review of Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics” appears in the Westminster theological journal.¹⁵
• June 21, 1978: PCA General Assembly asks Committee on Christian Education and Publications to define “theonomy” and make a recommendation as to a request for a committee to study the topic.¹⁶
• February 8, 1979: Greg Bahnsen terminated from RTS Jackson faculty.¹⁷
• June 18, 1979: PCA Committee on Christian Education and Publications committee recommends a simple definition and no further study.¹⁸
• 1980: Greg Bahnsen becomes pastor of Covenant Community OPC in southern California. He minsters in the OPC in SoCal until his death.³
• 1980: Westminster Seminary California welcomes its first class of seminarians. Meredith Kline joins the faculty the following year.¹⁹
• Feb 2, 1981: Two weeks after Ronald Regan is inaugurated, Newsweek publishes an issue on the Religious Right and calls Chalcedon Foundation the “Think Tank of the Religious Right”²⁰
• 1981: James Jordan moves to Tyler, TX (where North had lived since 1979) to pastor Westminster PCA. Disagreement between North and Rushdoony over article written by Jordan for the Chalcedon Foundation’s Journal of Christian Reconstruction results in Rushdoony never speaking to his son-in-law again.²¹
• June 13, 1983: PCA General Assembly’s Permanent Sub-committee on Judicial Business responds to a “CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY ON WCF 19-4”. 11th General Assembly of the PCA adopts its recommendations on theonomy and ordination, saying “no particular view of the application of the judicial law for today should be made a basis for orthodoxy or excluded as heresy”.²²
• 1983: Joe Morecraft leads Chalcedon Presbyterian Church out of the PCA to form the RPCUS after formal complaint of theonomic views being required for holding office at CPC.⁵
• November 4, 1986: Rev. Joe Morecraft loses to Democrat George Darden for a Georgia seat in the House of Representatives.²³
• April 18, 1987: Death of Cornelius Van Til.²⁴
• June 14, 1988: Pat Robertson loses to George H.W. Bush in the Republican presidential primaries.²⁵
• November 1, 1990: Theonomy: A Reformed Critique published by WTS faculty.²⁶
• 1991: Three out of four of the RPCUS presbyteries depart from the denomination. One becomes the Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery²⁷, one becomes RPCGA²⁸, and the 3rd dissolves.
• 1991: Bahnsen publishes “No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics”²⁹; Vern Poythress publishes “Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses” the same year³⁰; “Theonomy: An Informed Response”, edited by Gary North, published by North’s organization.³¹
• December 11, 1995: Greg Bahnsen dies at age 47.³²
• 2001: PCA’s Westminster Presbytery votes to leave PCA; some members hope to realign with RPCUS.³³
• February 8, 2001: Rushdoony dies at age 84.
• 2002: Westminster Presbytery reverses decision to leave the PCA; its Tazewell, VA congregation leaves for the RPCUS.³⁴

Sources on Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction

• The Christian Reconstruction/ Theonomy movement
• Building God’s Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction by Julie Ingersoll
• Christian Reconstruction: R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism by Michael McVicar
• Chalcedon Foundation
• 2015 Bahnsen Conference at Branch of Hope OPC
• PCAHistory.org
• “Free Books” at GaryNorth.com

He spoke at a WTS chapel last fall on “Presbyterian Progress & Protest in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries”. In the talk, he outlines the rise of liberalism and unbelief in the PCUSA that lead to the formation of the OPC and Westminster Theological Seminary.

The talk is worth your time.

San Francisco Presbytery Ordains Mr. Joseph Young

On September 3rd, the Presbytery of San Francisco, after long and serious debate, voted more than three to one to license, and 21 to 16 to ordain Mr. Joseph Young, brilliant young graduate of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, who refused to pledge blind “loyalty” to the Boards of the Church.

The fight upon Mr. Young was led by the Rev. Jesse H. Baird, D.D., Auburn Affirmationist Pastor of Oakland’s First Presbyterian Church. Said an observer: “It was the most thrilling thing I have ever seen in our Church. I say with utter solemnity that the young man reminded me of our Lord Jesus. His perfect poise, quietness, gentleness, and readiness of answer under circumstances which were most trying caused a fear and hush to descend upon the Presbytery. The Modernists were out to crush him, and it looked for a time that he was going to be crushed. But let it be said to the credit of the Presbytery of San Francisco that common sense and honesty prevailed. The fact that the vote stood three to one shows that we need not give up all hope for our beloved Presbyterian Church. Dr. Baird was visibly affected by the young man’s readiness of answer and his loveable nature and Christ-like spirit made him more than a match for Dr. Baird.”

Samples of questions and answers given (not all questions were asked by Dr. Baird):

Q. — “Do you promise to study the unity and peace of the Church?”

A. — “I will study the peace, unity and purity of the Church.”

Q. — “Will you promise to be subject to your brethren?”

A. — “I will be subject to my brethren ‘in the Lord.’”

Q. — “If you become a minister and have charge of a Church will you inform the people that you think the Church is disloyal?”

A. — “We are not Romanists, we do not keep the people in ignorance.”

Q. — “Do you think the Professors of the Seminary [San Anselmo] are not sincere and honest men?”

A. — “I think they are sincere, but I think some of them are sincerely wrong.”

Q. — “Here is an excerpt from the 1758 Basis of Union in which it says that any who find themselves in disagreement shall quietly resign from the Church. Are you willing to do that if you find yourself at odds with your brethren?”

A. — “That contradicts the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church and I do not agree with it.” [The resolution of 1758 was adopted prior to the adoption of the Constitution (1788) and the formation of the General Assembly. It has not been the “law” of the church since 1788.]

An Elder — “Mr. Moderator, we are not trying Dr. Machen or Westminster Seminary. Why does Dr. Baird try to inject Machen into this? Let us be fair and examine the young man.”

Another Elder — “Let us not shoot Dr. Machen through this young man. Let us not take our spite out on Westminster Seminary by shooting the recruits.”

Finally asked to make any statement he desired, Mr. Young said, in substance: “I must say there are serious doubts in my mind [About the Board of Foreign Missions]; Dr. Machen’s Pamphlet and the Rev. Carl Mclntire’s Pamphlet have never been answered. We should answer by fair investigation. I have listened today to the abuse of Dr. Machen. I sat under Dr. Machen for three years and never saw any of the bitterness you accuse him of. I found him to be a courteous, Christian gentleman, without bitterness but with a sincere desire to be right with God.”

The vote to license was approximately three to one. Then some of those opposing seemed to change their attack and pled that they should “lay hands hastily on no man.” The plea was not considered appropriate, however, and the vote to ordain was then carried 21 to 16.

Said an observer: “Perhaps the most hopeful thing about the examination of Mr. Joseph Young is that San Francisco Presbytery, in the face of all the evil reports which had reached them concerning Dr. Machen, Westminster Seminary and her student body, were open minded, and after a most searching examination as to the doctrinal, mental and character qualifications of the young man, were absolutely convinced that a great injustice would have been done had they refused to ordain him.”

One of those who opposed Mr. Young then requested that the brethren would see that no news of the examination should be allowed to reach the Press.

I remember that the Stated Clerks of those Presbyteries gave me gave a great deal of trouble. Some of them, particularly of the country Presbyteries would not consult the almanac. They would say that they Presbytery would convene on the second Monday after full moon, early at candlelight. My father exacted of me that I should find out which Monday that was and calculate the probable hour of early candlelight.

(From Woodrow Wilson in Church by Dr. James H. Taylor. Image from wilsonboyhoodhome.org.)

The Marriage Tonight

December 18, 1919, The (Rock Hill) Record

Tonight at 6 o’clock, at the residence of the bride’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. A.A. Barron, the marriage of Miss Annis Barron to the Rev. Mr. Joseph Hopper of Sanford, Ky., will be celebrated.

The following will be the attendants:

Misses Margaret McQueen, of Roland, N.C., Virginia Barron, Margaret Hopper, of Sanford, Ky., sister of the groom, and Maude Barron will be the bridesmaids.

Miss Lottie Barron will be the maid of honor. George Hopper, brother of the groom, will be the best man.

Little Adelaide Miller and William Barron will be the ribbon bearers. W. L. Barron, oldest brother of the bride, will give her away.¹ Little Annie Stokes will be the ring-bearer.

The groomsmen will be Lorraine Simril, Dr. R. C. Barron, Earl Barron, Rev. John Golsby and George Hopper, brother of groom.

Miss Anna Roddy Miller will play the wedding march and Mrs. J. Barron Steele will sing just before the ceremony.

The ceremony will be performed by the Rev. Mr. E. B. Hunter, assisted by the Rev. Mr. A. S. Rogers.

Rock Hill has suffered another sad bereavement in the death of a splendid citizen, Mr. A. A. [Archibald Alexander] Barron, who passed away at 12:15 Wednesday morning, at his home in Oakland Avenue, after an illness of about two weeks. The immediate cause of death was an affection of the heart. He had been known to be critically ill several days prior to his death.

Modest and unassuming in manner, Mr. Barron was nevertheless noted for his faithfulness to whatever trust was imposed in him. He will be sorely missed, not only by his devoted family, but by all who called him friend.

The sympathy of the entire community goes out to the sorrowing ones in their affliction.

Alexander A. Barron was born in the Clay Hill section of York county, May 26, 1851, and was at the time of his death about 58 years old. He was the son of James Leroy Barron and Amanda (Barnett) Barron, and, until his removal to Ebenezer, lived all his life in his native section - Clay Hill. Mr. Barron has for years been one of the most successful planters in his vicinity and until two years ago, was actively engaged in operating his large farm at Ebenezer.

Several years ago he and two of his sons, Messrs. R. E. and W. L. Barron, organized the Rock Hill Hardware Company, of this city, of which he was president at the time of his death.¹

About thirty years ago, he was happily married to Miss Mary Robert Partlow, of Wright’s Ferry. To them were born eight children, all of whom are living, as follows: W. L., R. E., Dr. Archibald, John and Earl, Mrs. E. B. Hunter, of Arkansas, Misses Lottie and Anice [Annis]. These, with a loving wife are left to mourn his loss.

Besides his immediate family, Mr. Barron leaves the following: His brothers; William Barron, of Belmont, J. B. Barron, of Tirzah, John R. Barron, of Rock Hill, Walter Barron, of Shelby, N.C., Paul Barron, of St. Matthews, and Mrs. T. N. Nichols, of Ebenezer. He was a nephew of Mrs. M. J. Simril, of this city.

Funeral services over the remains were held Wednesday afternoon at 5 o’clock at the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, of which he had been an elder for quite a number of years. The services were conducted by Rev. A. S. Rogers, the pastor, assisted by Revs. Alexander Martin, of the First Presbyterian Church, and J. T. Dendy, of Ebenezer Presbyterian Church, after which the remains were laid to rest in Laurelwood Cemetery. The following were the pallbearers:

Active—T. L. Johnston, John A. Black, R. T. Fewell, Alex. B. Fewell, J. H. Miller, Dr. J. A. Stokes, John A. Shurley, W. W. Miller.

Honorary—W. H. Mitchell, John White, Dr. J. R. Miller, R. T. Wright, J. H. B. Jenkins.

In the death of Mr. Barron Rock Hill and this community has lost one of its best citizens, the Associate Reformed Church a most loyal member and officer, and The Record one of its staunchest friends.

A man who loves the Reformed Faith with all his heart and believes that no matter what other churches or other individuals may think is true, will, I think, defend it whether it is popular or not and will carry his defence [sic] of it out into the public concils [sic] of the Church.

Quoted in The Reorganization of Princeton Theological Seminary Reconsidered by Ronald T. Clutter.

Joseph Hopper (1892–1971), my great-grandfather, graduated magna cum laude from Centre College in Kentucky in 1914. He matriculated to Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary that same year and graduated in 1917.¹

In 1935, my great grandparents returned from the mission field in Korea (where they had been since 1920) for a furlough. That fall, he worked on his Th.D. degree at Union Theological Seminary² in Richmond.³

His thesis was entitled The Apostolic Message to the Unconverted in the Orient Today. Building on “Stuart Robinson’s ‘Discourses of Redemption’ and Dr. Turnbull’s⁴ Bible studies”, he sought to outline the “successive revelations of the gospel, beginning with the first gospel in Eden” with the goal of showing “the final, absolute, and perfect message of God to sinful men, and that by it, and it alone, men of the Orient, and as well as of the Occident and other parts of the world, are being saved today”.

Joseph wrote just three years after Hocking’s seminal report Rethinking Missions: A Layman’s Inquiry After One Hundred Years. Hocking’s work was “funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and co-sponsored by the missions boards of seven Protestant denominations, including [the PCUSA].”⁵ The report argues that the work of missions should not be to impress on people the exclusive claims of Christ but seek the “continued co-existence [of other religions] with Christianity, each stimulating the other to their ultimate goal, unity in the completest religious truth”. If my grandfather’s thesis was not an intentional response to Hocking, it is certainly a response to the growing theological liberalism he perceived in missiology of the day.

Joseph’s son Joe Barron Hopper (1921–1992) attend Davidson College from 1938 to 1942. After graduation, he enrolled at Union Theological Seminary where he studied until 1945.

At Union, Joe met his future wife Dorothy [Dot] Longenecker. She had studied English at Queens College in Charlotte from 1937 to 1941, and then moved to Richmond to attend the [PCUS’s] Assembly’s Training School⁶ where she and Joe overlapped during her second year. She wrote a thesis entitled “The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Second Generation Foreign Missionaries of the Presbyterian Church U.S.” for her Master’s in Christian Education and graduated in 1943.

In 1950, my grandparents were forced to evacuate from Korea due to the impending war. They moved to Richmond where my father was soon born. My Joe B. started work on a Th.M. degree at Union Theological Seminary. His thesis was entitled The Holy Spirit and Five New Testament Doctrines. He did two “minors” which entailed reports on Protestant Reformation Leaders and Studies in the Parables of Jesus. My grandfather completed his Th.M. the following year and graduate on May 22, 1951.

Presbyterian history scholar Darryl Hart helps set the context for this monumental plan:

One of the bigger items on the denomination’s agenda was a plan for organic union with the other large denominations in the United States. These ecumenical plans drew momentum from Protestant inter denominational co-operation during the First World War, but they also culminated fifty years of mainstream American Protestant ecumenism. Ever since the end of the Civil War when northern Protestants had put aside theological, liturgical and ecclesiastical differences for the sake of political union American Protestantism had been heading down a similar co-operative course in order to maintain Protestant hegemony against the dark forces of Catholicism, materialism, atheism, and secularism.¹

The Council on Organic Union of Evangelical Churches in the United States ultimately extended an invitation to eighteen American, mainline denominations to unite as as the United Churches of Christ in America. The 1920 General Assembly of the PCUSA heartily embraced this plan of union, and the commissioners sent the proposal to the presbyteries for a vote.

That Assembly was the first that J. Gresham Machen attended (having been ordained in 1915). Machen was shocked by how the proposal was hustled through the Assembly with little debate and sent to the presbyteries for a vote. Hart continues,

Machen opposed the 1920 plan for church union not so much because he favoured the bogeymen of Anglo-American Protestants but rather because such co-operation disregarded theological conviction in favour of a politicised Christianity.

While the plan, known as The Philadelphia Plan, was ultimately rejected by the PCUSA, 100 presbyteries, out of 302, voted in support of the plan.²

Letter from the Stated Clerk

Here is the letter sent by the stated clerk following the 1920 Assembly:

To the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

At the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., held in Philadelphia, Pa., May 20-28, 1920, the Assembly’s Special Committee on “Church Cooperation and Union” reported to the Assembly that, at the invitation of the General Assembly meeting at Columbus, Ohio, in May, 1918, a Council of the Evangelical Churches in the U.S.A. had been held, and that a “Plan of Union Tor Evangelical Churches in the U.S.A.” had been formulated and adopted by said Council, and overtured back to the Supreme governing bodies of the constituent Churches, to proceed thereupon in accordance with the constitution of each Church. And the report of the Assembly’s Committee set forth said “Plan” in detail; and the General Assembly adopted the following recommendation, offered by said Committee:

“Your Committee heartily recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of this Plan of Union, and that an Overture be sent down to the Presbyteries, authorizing the General Assembly to associate our Church with this visible body to be known as the ‘United Churches of Christ in America.’ ”

Pursuant to this action by the General Assembly, the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., are asked to express their approval or disapproval of said “Plan of Union,” by a direct affirmative or negative answer to this question:

Do you approve of the “Plan of Union for Evangelical Churches in the U.S.A.,” as that “Plan” is set forth in the Report of the Committee on “Church Cooperation and Union,” which was adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., meeting in Philadelphia, Pa., on Wednesday, May 26th, 1920? (See Assembly Minutes, 1920, pp. 117-122.)

J. M. HUBBERT, Assistant Stated Clerk.

What follows is the full text of the Plan of Union taken from the 1920 GA minutes.

Council on Organic Union of Evangelical Churches in the United States.

In pursuance to the call of the Ad Interim Committee, created by the Conference of the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the United States in answer to the invitation issued by the General Assembly of our Church in 1918, through its Committee on Church Cooperation and Union, a council on Organic Union convened at Philadelphia, Pa., February 3-6, 1920.

In this Council the following eighteen denominations were officially represented by 138 registered delegates:

• Armenian Evangelical Church.
• Baptist Churches.
• The Christian Church.
• Christian Union of the United States.
• The Congregational Church.
• Church of the Disciples.
• Evangelical Synod of North America.
• The Society of Friends.
• Five Years’ Meeting of the Friends in America.
• Primitive Methodist Church.
• Methodist Episcopal Church.
• Moravian Church.
• Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
• Protestant Episcopal Church.
• Reformed Episcopal Church.
• Reformed Church in the U.S.
• United Presbyterian Church.
• Welsh Presbyterian Church.

The Ad Interim Committee, composed of representatives of twenty-three different ecclesiastical bodies, as the result of prolonged deliberations, submitted a Plan of Union, which, with some slight amendments, was adopted almost unanimously, and is herewith submitted to the General Assembly for its approval. It is as follows:

Plan of Union for Evangelical Churches in the United States

Preamble:

Whereas: We desire to share, as a common heritage, the faith of the Christian Church, which has, from time to time, found expression in great historic statements; and

Whereas: We all share belief in God our Father; in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Saviour; in the Holy Spirit, our Guide and Comforter; in the Holy Catholic Church, through which God’s eternal purpose of salvation is to be proclaimed and the Kingdom of God is to be realized on earth; in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing God’s revealed will, and in the life eternal; and

Whereas: Having the same spirit and owning the same Lord, we none the less recognize diversity of gifts and ministrations for whose exercise due freedom must always be afforded in forms of worship and in modes of operation:

Plan

Now, we the churches hereto assenting as hereinafter provided in Article VI do hereby agree to associate ourselves in a visible body to be known as the “United Churches of Christ in America,” for the furtherance of the redemptive work of Christ in the world. This body shall exercise in behalf of the constituent Churches the functions delegated to it by this instrument, or by subsequent action of the constituent Churches, which shall retain the full freedom at present enjoyed by them in all matters not so delegated.

Accordingly, the Churches hereto assenting and hereafter thus associated in such visible body do mutually covenant and agree as follows:

I. Autonomy in purely denominational affairs.

In the interest of the freedom of each and of the cooperation of all, each constituent church reserves the right to retain its creedal statements, its form of government in the conduct of its own affairs, and its particular mode of worship.

In taking this step, we look forward with confident hope to that, complete unity toward which we believe the Spirit of God is leading us. Once we shall have cooperated wholeheartedly in such visible body, in the holy activities of the work of the church, we are persuaded that our differences will be minimized and our union become more vital and effectual.

II. The Council. (How Constituted.)

The United Churches of Christ in America shall act through a Council and through such Executive and Judicial Commissions, or Administrative Boards, working ad interim, as such Council may from time to time appoint and ordain.

The Council shall convene as provided for in Article VI and every second year thereafter. It may also be convened at any time in such manner as its own rules may prescribe. The Council shall be a representative body.

Each constituent Church shall be entitled to representation therein by an equal number of ministers and of lay members.

The basis of representation shall be: two ministers and two lay members for the first one hundred thousand or fraction thereof of its communicants; and two ministers and two lay members for each additional one hundred thousand or major fraction thereof.

III. The Council. (Its Working.)

The Council shall adopt and promulgate its own By-laws and rules of procedure and order. It shall define the functions of its own officers, prescribe the mode of their selection and their compensation, if any. It shall provide for its budget of expense by equitable apportionment of the same among the constituent Churches through their supreme governing or advisory bodies.

IV. Relation of Council and Constituent Churches.

The supreme governing or advisory bodies of the constituent Churches shall effectuate the decisions of the Council by general or specific deliverance or other mandate whenever it maybe required by the law of a particular state, or the charter of a particular Board, or other ecclesiastical corporation; but, except as limited by this Plan, shall continue the exercise of their several powers and functions as the same exist under the denominational constitution.

The Council shall give full faith and credit to the authenticated acts and records of the several governing or advisory bodies of the constituent Churches.

V. Specific Functions of the Council.

In order to prevent overlapping, friction, competition or waste in the work of the existing denominational boards or administrative agencies, and to further the efficiency of that degree of cooperation which they have already achieved in their work at home and abroad:

(a) The Council shall harmonize and unify the work of the United Churches.

(b) It shall direct such consolidation of their missionary activities as well as of particular churches in over-churched areas as is consonant with the law of the land or of the particular denomination affected. Such consolidation may be progressively achieved, as by the uniting of the boards or Churches of any two or more constituent denominations, or may be accelerated, delayed, or dispensed with, as the interests of the Kingdom of God may require.

(c) If and when any two or more constituent Churches, by their supreme governing or advisory bodies, submit to the Council for its arbitrament any matter of mutual concern, not hereby already covered, the Council shall consider and pass upon such matter so submitted.

(d) The Council shall undertake inspirational, and educational leadership of such sort and measure as may be proper, under the powers delegated to it by the constituent Churches in the fields of Evangelism, Social Service, Religious Education, and the like.

VI.

The assent of each constituent Church to this Plan shall be certified from its supreme governing or advisory body by the appropriate officers thereof to the Chairman of the Ad Interim Committee, which shall have power upon a two- thirds vote to convene the Council as soon as the assent of at least six denominations shall have been so certified.

VII. Amendments

This plan of organic union shall be subject to amendment only by the constituent Churches, but the Council may overture to such bodies any amendment which shall have originated in said Council, and shall have been adopted by a three-fourths vote.

Your Committee heartily recommencements to the General Assembly the adoption of this Plan of Union, and that an overture be sent down to the Presbyteries authorizing the General Assembly to associate our Church with this visible body to be known as the “United Churches of Christ in America.”

In making such recommendations, your Committee would respectfully beg the General Assembly to consider the following:

1. We ask that our becoming a member of this organization be conditioned on the membership of the Council being confined to Evangelical Christian Churches.
2. We ask the General Assembly to note that this organization provides for a real organic union with these sister evangelical Churches. It should be a cause of great joy that so many denominations were willing even to unite in a conference on such a proposition. The actual results achieved by the Philadelphia Council may be far less than many of us desire; but it should be a source of profound gratitude to God that we have been able to make even this beginning. Indeed it may be far wiser for us to start in this modest way. Real organic union deals with life, and life often grows best from small beginnings.
3. The attention of the General Assembly is also called to the vital advance which this Council achieves over a mere Church Federation. Real powers, executive and administrative, are committed to it. It is an organization in which as sister Churches we can unitedly do things, and not merely talk about them. To quote from the proposed Plan of Union, the first of its specific functions reads: “The Council shall harmonize and unify the work of the United Churches.” It is also empowered to direct the consolidation of both the missionary activities of denominations and of individual congregations in over churched areas, “as the interests of the Kingdom of God may require.”
4. Your Committee feels that our entire Church should offer profound gratitude to God that we have been permitted to take the initiative in such a signal step toward answering our Lord’s intercession, that His people may be one.

Objection having been made to the change in the Preamble of the Plan of Union of the word “Evangelical” to the word Christian on the ground that it was not in harmony with the general purposes of the Council, the following action was taken unanimously by the Ad Interim Committee.

Inasmuch as the substitution of the term “the Christian Church” in Article One of the Preamble of the Plan of Union for the term “the Evangelical Churches” has raised doubtful questions and provoked disturbing discussions in reference to the design and scope of the Plan of Union adopted by the American Council on Organic Union of the Churches of Christ, the Ad Interim Committee submits the following statement in explanation of the significance of the change of terms.

The intention of the Committee on Plan was to bear witness, in the first paragraph of the Preamble, to the fact that the churches entering the proposed union accepted as their common heritage the cardinal objects of the Christian faith as these were set forth in great historic, statements in different periods of Christianity.

When the Committee used the clause “the faith of the Evangelical Churches which has from time to time, found expression in great historic statements,” they had in mind not only the common heritage of the Churches set forth in the great historic statements since the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century but, also, such statements as the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, which were made centuries before the Reformation.

Accordingly when a resolution was offered on the floor of the Council that the phrase in the first paragraph of the preamble be changed from “the faith Of the Evangelical Churches,” to “the faith of the Christian Church,” the Committee on Plan favored it, and, with the exception of a single vote, the Council adopted it. The modification of terms was accepted in the interest of historical accuracy, but with no thought of including other than Evangelical Churches in the Union.

Since the two conferences on Organic Union have been composed exclusively of delegates of Evangelical Churches, the Ad Interim Committee desires to record its unanimous conviction that the proposed Plan of Union is to be submitted only to the Evangelical Churches, and directs that when the Plan is brought before the Supreme Judicatories or advisory bodies, it shall bear the superscription: A Plan of Union for Evangelical Churches in the U.S.A.

The Officers of the Ad Interim Committee are: President, Rev. Wm. H. Roberts, D.D.; Secretaries, Rev. Wm. P. Fulton, D.D. and Rev. Rufus W. Miller, D.D.; Treasurer. Mr. Edward H. Bonsall.

Robert Alexander Webb, the son of Robert C. Webb and Elizabeth Dortch Webb, was born on the 20th day of September, 1856, at Oxford, Mississippi, and fell asleep in Louisville, Ky., May 23, 1919. He spent the first fifteen years of his life on the plantation of his father, and enjoyed the sports and outdoor life of a boy on a Southern plantation. He always cherished the happiest memories of his boyhood days. When he was fifteen years of age the family removed to Nashville, Tennessee, and at seventeen he became a student in the Webb School at Culleoka, Tennessee, noted for its high quality as a training school.

From this institution he passed to the Southwestern Presbyterian University at Clarksville, Tennessee, from which he was graduated with highest honors in 1887. At the closing exercises that year the Baccalaureate sermon was delivered by the Rev. John L. Girardeau, D. D, Professor of Theology in Columbia Seminary, one of the most eloquent preachers and orators our country has produced. The ardent spirit of the young man was so profoundly impressed by the preacher that he determined to pursue his theological studies in the Seminary at Columbia, in which he matriculated the following September. The Seminary had an able faculty and young Webb appreciated all of his professors and zealously performed every task, but it was Theology that engaged his deepest interest and it was Dr. Girardeau whose Christian character most attracted him, whose eloquence most charmed him and whose profound thinking and inspiring instruction most excited his intellectual powers. The older man took the younger into companionship with himself, and many were the hours they spent together in discussion of profoundest themes of theology, and this companionship became the more intimate when, after graduation, the young man became one of the household through marriage with Miss Sally, second daughter of Dr. Girardeau. Death soon dissolved this relation, but the two men were always father and son.

It was a frequent counsel of Dr. Girardeau to the Seminary graduate to accept a call to a church in the country rather than in a town or City. His reason for this advice was that the young minister forms his intellectual habits in the first three or four years and that the country offers the best opportunity for continuous and systematic study and for the formation of studious habits. Dr. Webb, acting upon this counsel, became the pastor of Bethel Church, in York County, South Carolina, one of the oldest and largest country churches in a region originally settled by Scotch-Irish and dotted with Presbyterian churches. In his case Dr. Girardeau’s judgment was fully vindicated. The young man gave himself with complete devotion to the study of great themes in theology and to the Christian Scriptures, and it was in the five years spent in this country church that he consolidated the results of all his previous studies and laid the foundation for his intellectual achievements in later days.

From Bethel Church Dr. Webb went to Davidson College, North Carolina, as pastor, and a year later became pastor of Westminster Church, Charleston, South Carolina. In 1892 he was called to the Chair of Theology in the Divinity School of the Southwestern Presbyterian University, which had been filled since the opening of the Divinity School in 1885 by the Rev. Joseph R. Wilson, D. D, father of President Woodrow Wilson, and from which Dr. Wilson had resigned. The University was favored at this time in adding to its faculty of older men several able young men, and the Divinity School sent forth a succession of graduates who proved themselves most effective ministers and not a few of whom have risen to distinction in the church.

From the outset Dr. Webb displayed all the qualities of a great teacher, and In these early days, as in all after years, he left an ineffaceable mark on every man who passed under his hand. His students spread his fame as a teacher and a Christian theologian and he speedily attained a reputation which increased with every passing year. In 1908, Dr. Webb, in response to a unanimous call by the Board of Directors, became Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, at Louisville. This most important chair had been vacant since the death in 1906 of the eminent theologian and teacher, Francis R. Beattie. Dr. Webb soon made a place for himself in the Seminary circle and the community, and though he lived the somewhat retired life of the teacher, he won many warm friends here as everywhere, and in and out of the churches there were many who admired the great scholar and the courteous Christian gentleman.

It would be pleasant to enter into personal details and recollections of Dr. Webb and to speak of him as preacher and pastor and ecclesiastic, but the limits of this sketch forbid, and there is opportunity only for an effort to estimate him in the office of a teacher of theology in which he served for twenty-seven years. For this office he was fitted by natural endowments, by bent of mind, by an almost perfect intellectual discipline, by deep Christian experience and by broad attainments. He commanded the whole field of theology and had thoroughly mastered all the historical systems of theology and the philosophies underlying or akin to them. He was not, however, a mere expositor of theological systems, but, on the ground of both Scripture and reason, a convinced and thorough—going adherent and advocate of the Augustinian or Calvinistic system of theology.

He had a keenly analytic mind, and with this power of analysis was united an equal power of logic which marched with unbroken step from premise to conclusion. Added to these was an unusual capacity for profound, clear and patient thinking which explored every recess of a subject, and an ability to set forth the results of study and thought in a style simple, clear, pungent and often flashing out in all the colors of rhetoric. These intellectual qualities were transfused with an ardent love of truth, an absolute submission to the teaching of the Holy Scripture, and an adoring devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. Webb’s method of instruction was the combination of text—book and lecture, along with daily inquisition of the student. In his questions he was very skillful, and while he would sometimes play the student as the fisherman plays the fish, it was always in kindest spirit. He threw his whole soul into his teaching and often the professor’s chair became the preacher’s pulpit and he bore down on the heart and conscience of the student with powerful appeal. His students were deeply attached to him and gave him the warmest affection and the most unstinted admiration. They knew him to be their friend, Wise in counsel and sympathetic with them in their doubts and difficulties. In all their ministry they remained loyal to him, and through them he has had an incalculable influence in holding the Church steadfast to her faith and to her mission.

It was the often expressed wish of Dr. Webb’s students and many other friends that he should publish his lectures, or reduce them to the form of a usable text-book in theology. Had his life been prolonged he might have been induced to undertake this, The wish is met in part by the present volume.

While at Clarksville Dr. Webb published a treatise on the Theology of Infant Salvation, in which he convincingly shows how the Calvinistic system provides, on the basis of the Scriptures, for the salvation of all persons who die in infancy. Some years later he delivered a course of lectures on the Smyth foundation at Columbia Seminary, which were repeated at Jackson, Miss., and published under the title of The Christian Hope. At various times articles of his appeared in the Presbyterian Quarterly and in the religious papers. The two volumes. and the occasional articles alike exhibit the ability, knowledge, and conscientious work always characteristic of his strong and disciplined mind.

Dr. Webb was taken away in the maturity of his powers, and at a time when the Church needs his steadying influence, and his unsurpassed ability in training young men for the ministry. He lives in the characters and teachings of his hundreds of students, who in this and other lands are preaching the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.

On October 23, 1888, Dr. Webb was married to Miss Roberta Chauncey Beck, of Columbia, S. C, who with their two children, Miss Annie Webb, of Louisville, and Robert A. Webb, Jr., M. D. of London, England, survives him. A great multitude throughout the Church share their sorrow in the loss they have suffered, and are grateful to God for him and for the grace by which he wrought so much for the Church and the world.

Our Alice was six years old that summer and often went up the road several doors to the Billy Graham home to play with their daughter GiGi who was slightly older. After she had been there one morning, the following conversation took place at lunch.

Joe: “Alice, where have you been playing this morning?”
Alice: “I played at GiGi’s house.”
Joe: “That’s nice; what did you do?”
Alice: “Oh, we played in the doghouse.”

The Grahams had a huge St. Bernard named Belshazzar, almost the size of a small pony, and of course it was necessary to have a very large doghouse to accommodate him. The conversation continued.

Joe: “Well, what’s it like in the doghouse?”
Alice: " It’s real nice; it’s got pictures on the wall."
Joe: “Oh, whose pictures are on the wall of the doghouse?”
Alice: “GiGi’s daddy’s picture!”
Joe: “Who put GiGi’s daddy’s pictures on the wall of the doghouse?”
Alice: “GiGi’s mommy!”

The only confirmation of this honor conferred on the young evangelist comes from the lips of a little six year old and as yet I have never asked Ruth or Billy Graham to confirm it. The Reader’s Digest would certainly have paid generously for this story (whether true or not) but I hesitated to trade on a contact with personal friends in this way. However, if I ever get really hard up for cash, I just might submit this tale!

The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those that fear Him, and His righteousness unto children’s children. To such as keep His covenant, and to those that remember His commandments to do them.

For the promise is unto you, and to your children and to all those that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

David and Liza, the Word of God teaches that the children of believers are included in the covenant and church of God. Along with all of us who believe, they belong to the membership of the Church, through the covenant made in Christ. This is confirmed to us by God in this Sacrament of baptism, which is a sign and seal of our cleansing from sin, of our engrafting into Christ, and of our welcome into the household of God. As your child is born within the covenant he has a right to receive this seal of the covenant. Like all of us, he too is a sinner in need of cleansing which baptism signifies, and when he is older he too must confess his sin and acknowledge his need of forgiveness and by faith claim salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. It is therefore your duty as well as that of all members of the larger household of faith, to set a godly example before him, and to instruct him in the truths of our Christian faith. I know from visits in your home that you already have a daily time with your children when together you sing and pray and hear God’s Word. Let me urge you to continue this practice and lead this child toward mature faith in his Savior.

Prayer

Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we invoke Thy blessing upon these parents as they take these solemn vows and present this child for baptism. As he is presented in humble faith, we beseech Thee to receive him, endue him with Thy Holy Spirit, and keep him ever as Thine own through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

To the Parents:

In presenting your child to God to be sealed in baptism for the blessings of the covenant of grace…

1. Do you reaffirm your own faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
2. Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?
3. Do you claim God’s covenant promise on his behalf, and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus for his salvation, as you did for your own?
4. Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavor to set before him a godly example, that you will pray with and for him, that you will teach him the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive by all the means of God’s appointment to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

To the Congregation:

Baptism is a sacrament given by our Lord to His body the church, and is to be administered in an atmosphere of faith. The congregation is, therefore, invited at this time to stand and participate in the sacrament of the covenant.

Baptism

Timothy David, child of the covenant, I baptize thee in the name the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, descend upon thee and dwell in thine heart for ever. Amen.

Prayer

Oh loving God, we thank Thee for setting us in families and for the gift of each new life. We give thanks for this particular child and for love and faith of his parents. By Thy Holy Spirit continue to work in this home that it may be a center of Christian life and witness to Thee.

Give these parents the grace to keep the vows that they have just made, as well as all the wisdom and patience needed to train up this child in the way he should go. Help them and all others to set before him an example of honesty, truthfulness, generosity, fairness, kindness, and above all devotion to Thee.

And as Timothy learns to walk on his little legs maybe he also walk with Thee. As his mind grasps the world about him may he know that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Give him health of body and strength of mind, moral courage and spiritual insight.

Enable him to able the instruction of the Apostle Paul to another Timothy so long ago to present himself approved of God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. Through all the days and years ahead watch over and protect him. Bless him and make him a blessing to others about him.

In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

By far the most “educational” two months of my life took place in the summer of 1935. It was a furlough year for our family after seven years in Korea. My parents had saved their money, researched travel plans, and prepared to take the long way back to America by sailing around the by “the ports.” This meant traveling by ship via Japan, as far south as Singapore, through the Suez Canal and Mediterranean Sea to England, and across the Atlantic to the U.S. Two weeks in Palestine and two weeks in the British Isles were carefully scheduled, and we would be on shipboard 56 nights during the summer. My Aunt Margaret Hopper traveled with our family, making six in the party.

Before departure my parents encouraged me to keep a daily diary, so I bought a little book for that purpose and faithfully recorded events and sights along the way. It was a fascinating and quite detailed account written from the viewpoint of a 14 year old boy and I would pay a good price to have it for reference now. Unfortunately it was one of the casualties of the Korean War. When we suddenly evacuated from Chonju in June of 1950 and could bring only one suitcase apiece along with us, it never occurred to me to pick up that little diary. Hence it was left behind, and very likely was used to start a fire or paper the walls of some little Korean house. It is therefore necessary to reconstruct our experiences that summer entirely from my memory which, after 55 years, is not to clear on all the details.

Our journey began by train to Pusan, night ferry across the Japan Straits to Shiminoseki (Japan), and train along the coast of the scenic Inland Sea of Japan to Yokohama where we boarded the British P.& O. passenger ship “Mantua.” She was a World War I vessel and was now on her last voyage before being scrapped… and looked like she was ready to retire. Nevertheless she was sea-worthy and comfortable and in every way thoroughly British, from the cabin “boy” who announced that our “bahth” was ready to everyone standing to sing lustily “God save the King” before the showing of a movie. This was the year of the three month celebration of the Silver Jubilee of King George and Queen Mary. Great Britain was at the height of her imperial glory, and celebrate she did that summer! Pictures of the royal family were everywhere while newspapers and magazines could think of nothing else. Almost every place we visited during the summer was controlled by the British, and we could not help but sense the pride and patriotism of the subjects of the empire upon which the sun never set.

But there were also dark clouds on the horizon. Beneto Mussolini had become the dictator of Italy, and this was the summer his troops were invading Ethiopia. As we sailed the seas toward the Suez Canal there was talk that Great Britain might close the canal to shipping in order to hinder the Italian military movements. This, plus whatever dire consequences might be the result of these international tensions in the regions we expected to travel, caused my parents considerable concern. Fortunately nothing happened to interfere with our plans, but as we look back now, it is with the realization that history-making events were occurring which continued to escalate until World War II began.

In all we touched 19 ports that summer, from the time we left Pusan until we reached New York. When we were in port, our nights were spent in our cabins on board ship, but days were crammed with as much sight-seeing as possible. For many of them I can recall only one or two outstanding impressions. After sailing from Yokohama, Japan, our first stop was Shanghai, China. Here, even after leaving a land as heavily populated as Korea, we were impressed by the enormous crowds thronging the streets. I remember that we walked along Nanking Road, which was literally wall-to-wall people. Right in the middle of the crowd on that street we met a missionary family serving in China (the Yates with their three daughters).

The next port was Hong Kong where we enjoyed our first glimpse of British colonial life. It was not quite the modern city then which it is today, but it was rich and prosperous in appearance. We drove in a taxi of some sort up along the crest of the mountain overlooking the city and enjoyed views out over the harbor and islands. Father saw in the newspaper that the famous pianist Arthur Rubinstein would give a concert at the roof garden of the Victoria Hotel on our one and only evening in Hong Kong, and he was determined that we should take in this musical treat. We were properly cleaned up and dressed in our Sunday-go-to-meeting best and went to the roof-top of this prestigious hotel where we found ourselves with the elite British and Chinese residents of Hong Kong… all decked out in the latest and most fashionable evening attire for this occasion. Though dressed in our very best and trying to act as though such occasions were old stuff to us, in reality we were about as crude and ill at ease as peasants from the farthest reaches of inland China would have been! We took inconspicuous back seats where we could not only take in the concert but have a sight-see of all the other illustrious guests. Rubinstein was a little short man, and for us children, the most entertaining feature was how, in order to reach all of the keyboard, he had to bounce up and down the piano bench with the tips of his swallow-tailed coat flapping around. So much for our “cultural event!”

Singapore was another jewel in the necklace of British colonies we visited that summer. It was clean and neat but I remember very little except that we drove from the island on which it lies across a causeway to the mainland of Malaysia to visit a rubber plantation. We continued sailing up the west coast of Malaysia to the port city of Penang, an island off the northern corner of that nation. Among the sightseeing attractions was a famous “snake” temple. It was a weird place, filled with clouds of incense smoke and vertical poles on which were racks of live snakes. How poisonous they were I do not know, but they appeared to be very heavily drugged… perhaps by the incense which was enough to anesthetize any one. The place was crowded with people who moved among the snake “roosts” bowing and worshiping these reptiles. Forever afterwards when Father preached about the “heathen in his blindness” he used the snake temple of Penang as his most graphic illustration of pagan worship.

Columbo is on the western coast of the island of Ceylon (now the Republic of Sri Lanka) about 2 0 miles south of the Indian mainland. The island is noted for tea, spices, precious stones and rubber, but more than anything else our parents wanted to see the “cinnamon gardens” about which they had read. The driver of the rented car seemed perplexed about the where-abouts of this place and we never found it, although in wandering around looking for it we saw many beautiful tropical gardens and parks. I think Father wanted to see the source of the familiar lines in Reginal Heber’s great missionary hymn, From Greenland’s Icy Mountains:

What though the spicy breezes Blow soft o’er Ceylon’s isle;
Though ev’ry prospect pleases,
And only man is vile:
In vain with lavish kindness The gifts of God are strown;
The heathen in his blindness Bows down to wood and stone.

I don’t recall sniffing any “spicy breezes” or detecting that “only man is vile” but certainly it is an isle where “ev’ry prospect pleases!” Our only port-of-call in India was Bombay, an enormous and densely populated city. Like many of the ports in the British Empire, it is situated on an island off the west coast of the mainland. Besides the crowds, I remember that much of the city was filthy and unpleasant. For some reason Father wanted to see the “towers of silence” for which the Indian Parsees are famous. This ancient cult belongs to the Zoroastrian religious persuasion and takes its name from the old Persian province of Parsa. The towers are about 30 feet high and built over a pit. The bodies of the Parsee dead are laid on the top of the towers on an open grating over the pit. After the vultures have swooped down and eaten the flesh, the bones drop into the pit below. It was pointed out to us where this gruesome custom was carried out, but we did not actually see the towers themselves. Why in the world this fascinated Father, I do not know.

As we approached the Holy Land, the tempo of our “orientation” in preparation for this tour accelerated. Every day we were called away from deck tennis or whatever else we were doing to sit on deck chairs in some quiet spot where one of our parents would read to us for an hour or so. They had brought along books such as H. V. Morton’s “In the Steps of the Master” which was a detailed travelogue describing his visit to various places in Palestine along with the historical significance of each place. As a Bible scholar, Father was already well acquainted with much of this material, but he too, wanted to make the most of this trip by being fully prepared in every way. This reading and study was more than worth while, and I know contributed to making our trip far more than mere sightseeing.

At Aden on the south-western tip of the Arabian peninsula we were conscious of touching the borders of Biblical territory. We docked for a day at this city which is now the capital of Yemen. It was fiercely hot and the sun seemed twice as brilliant as usual. Very likely this impression was intensified because, after the lush green vegetation of the southern ports, here there was no vegetation, trees, or shade. Buildings were made of white stone, increasing the glare of a burning sun. The travel books had told of “Solomon’s Pools” here, and it was imperative that we see anything associated with such an important Old Testament character. A car and driver were hired and we drove out of town into the entrance of a deep valley or ravine, and were shown large reservoirs sealed with some kind of white plaster to hold water. Since there is almost no rain fall in this arid region, these “pools” acted as cisterns to catch the waters of sudden flash floods when the rare rains fell in those valleys where there was only bare rock and no vegetation to hold the water. The legend is that some of Solomon’s commercial ventures were based here, and, given its strategic location, this is entirely possible.

Sailing north up the lengthy Red Sea was one of the most unpleasant parts of the trip because of the almost unbearable heat. When there was a breeze it only made matters worse as it carried the surrounding desert hot air with it. Of course in those days air-conditioning was unknown, and all we could do was endure it. This discomfort was somewhat relieved by watching the distant shore-line, particularly toward the east where lay the Sinai Peninsula. It was bare and forbidding, filled with rough rocky mountains, and from a distance completely devoid of all life. We could visualize how Moses had fled from Egypt to this desolate region, married the daughter of Jethro, kept the flocks of his father-in-law, and heard God’s call from the burning bush. We could imagine how the Children of Israel must have suffered for lack of food and water for 40 years in such a wilderness. Some of the mountains were extremely high and we kept trying to decide which was Mt. Sinai (at about 75 miles away and probably invisible from our ship).

Like other ships waiting to enter the Suez Canal, we anchored off the port of Suez (at the south end) until the schedule allowed us to proceed. At this point we knew we must be very near where Moses led his people through the Red Sea on dry land and could imagine the surroundings and situation of a flight of thousands of refugees with the mighty Pharaoh’s army in hot pursuit. No doubt our parents saw to it that we examine the account in Exodus of this great miracle which was forever such a monumental high-point in Jewish history and religion and is commemorated by numerous references throughout the Bible. Traffic through the canal was one-way, so convoys north and south were scheduled and could pass each other only in lakes along the way. The canal itself seemed to be just a big ditch through the sand which stretched away on each side. Ships had to sail very slowly lest their propellers stir up waves and wash down the sand from the banks. When the canal turned slightly and we could see other ships around the bend but could no longer see the canal itself, it looked as though ship superstructures were sailing majestically across the desert sands. Occasionally we could see Arabs along the bank, and camels carrying burdens or working.

We docked at the northern end of the canal at Port Said and took a train half-way back down the west side of the canal. In those days Egypt and Palestine were part of the British Empire, and crossing national borders was no problem at all.

It was dark when we reached Ismailiya and crossed over the canal to the other side to catch a night train to Palestine. I remember nothing of that trip except how excited we were the next morning when we waked up to find ourselves in a railroad station where the sign read “Gaza.” We were right in the heart of the Philistine territory and remembered the exploits of Samson and how he carried off the gates of this city one night. We continued through olive orchards and vineyards up through rough hills and deep rocky ravines towards Jerusalem, mindful that in this region David had faced Goliath and killed him with a stone from his slingshot and later with his band of desperados lurked while playing hide and seek with King Saul’s army.

Arriving in Jerusalem we stayed at the American Colony which was a sort of hostel for people interested in visiting the Biblical sites. It also entertained some of the scholars doing research or engaged in archeology. It was located in the northern suburbs of the city, and through its offices Father had worked out a schedule of tours and arranged for a car and driver to take us about. It was comfortable, provided good American style meals, and was friendly and helpful. Father was now in his glory, and all of us were anxious to see as much as possible in the ten days allotted for our visit.

Of primary interest was the area where Solomon’s temple and its successors were built and where now the Moslem “Dome of the Rock” or “Mosque of Omar” is located.

Some think this was Mt. Moriah where Abraham was told to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice. Here was the threshing floor of Araunah which David bought to avert the pestilence God had sent. Much of the history recorded in both the Old and New Testaments took place around this spot. Jesus Himself was brought here to be circumcised and after He was 12 years old must have returned quite often. It was to claim this site that the Crusades were organized and fought, and where tensions are still very much alive between Jews and Moslems. We were sad that the quirks of history have now brought it under the control of Islam no matter how magnificent and gorgeous the mosque itself is. We entered and walked around the great rock under the dome and entered the cave in its side where we saw an inverted bucket-sized depression overhead, said to have been caused when Mohamed the prophet rose from kneeling in prayer and the ceiling receded to keep him from bumping his head.

Going south from the American Colony into Jerusalem we normally passed through the Damascus Gate. One day our guide took us to a small entrance near this gate which led us down into a cave-like passage way under the city. There we found ourselves in the extensive “Solomon’s quarries” which many other tourists never visit. We walked quite a long distance through glistening man-made white caves which are actually a quarry from which in ancient times building stone for the city was carved out of the chalk rock which underlies much of Jerusalem. The rock is so soft that it can be cut with a pocket knife, so I cut a small piece to take with me. When brought out into the air and sunlight this stone quickly hardens and turns a delicate pink shade. It is thought that I Kings 6:7 refers to the way in which stone for building Solomon’s temple was quarried underground here so that the chiseling could not be heard above ground. “And the house, while it was being built, was built of stone prepared at the quarry, and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any iron tool heard in the house while it was being built.”

On the day when the rest of the family visited (among other places) the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, traditional tomb of Jesus, I was confined to bed with “the bug,” that common scourge of tourists in foreign lands who eat food or drink water that doesn’t agree with them. Fortunately the people who ran the American Colony were most kind and looked after me so that the others could continue sight-seeing. However, the family was not particularly impressed by what they saw at this church, surrounded as it is with so much elaborate decoration and ritual and squabbling clerics.

Later I did see a tomb which was far more “natural” and fully in keeping with the Biblical account of the type of tomb where our Lord was buried. This place was called the “Tomb of the Kings,” although I don’t know just which kings. It was a bit out of the city in some sort of garden where there was a rock cliff which we approached from the lower level. The small opening for a “door” had been cut into the cliff face near the bottom, and was perhaps two feet wide and four feet high. It would have required the disciple John to stoop in order to look into such a tomb, as recorded in his gospel: “. .and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.” (John 20:5)

Running from just below the door on a gradual incline to the right up along the cliff face was a sort of narrow shelf with a long groove in it. Beneath the door and also at the upper end of this were slight depressions in that groove. Resting in the upper depression was a large round stone, like a mill stone, perhaps five or six inches thick and big enough in diameter to cover the door of the tomb. That stone could be rolled down the groove which served as a track until it rested in the lower depression and completely blocked the door. It might not be so difficult to roll it down, but to roll it up that track would take several strong men. It was exactly the situation described in Mark 16:3-4. “And they [the women] were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?’ And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.”

We entered the tomb and found ourselves in a large room with a stone table in the middle, just the right size upon which a body could be laid out. We could imagine that in such a tomb, Jesus had been hastily placed on Good Friday evening, and that the cloths seen by His friends on Easter morning would be easily visible, lying right there where the now Risen Lord had lain. I am sure this tomb was far more realistic than the Holy Sepulcher, and has always been the mental picture I have carried whenever reading of the resurrection.

One day we drove down to Bethlehem and Hebron, some 10 and 20 miles south of Jerusalem. Like most of Palestine the region was bare and rocky without much in the way of vegetation. Yet on the hills around Bethlehem there were shepherds tending flocks of sheep, very much like the boy David had done, or others a thousand years later were doing on the night Jesus was born. We entered the Church of the Nativity which is rather depressing due to the multiplication of trappings and ceremony involved, to say nothing of the childish disputes over “rights” on the part of various Christian sects. The presumed birth place itself is deep down in a sort of cave under the church where it is surrounded by candles and burning incense. Perhaps it is the true place of His birth, but it is hard for me to picture that as the setting of an Oriental Inn with its stable, conveniently located to care for the animals of travelers. At Hebron we were shown the mosque which has been erected over the cave of Machpelah where the patriarchs of Genesis were buried. Given the meticulous care with which Abraham secured the deed to that property, and the veneration of eastern people for graves, I am inclined to believe this is truly the spot. However, the Moslems have not permitted anyone to enter and verify all this.

Another day we drove eastward down through the wilderness of Judea to Jericho, the Jordan River, and the Dead Sea. This required descending from the Jerusalem elevation of about 2500 feet to the Jordan Valley depression which is about 1300 feet below sea level. The wilderness is exactly what that word implies… a region of rocky cliffs and caves and dry gullies (or wadies). When Satan came to tempt Jesus who had fasted for 40 days, he could point to innumerable white stones, some of them loaf shaped, and tempt Him to turn them into bread. When Jesus told the parable of the man who fell among thieves as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho through this region, He was without question drawing from actual fact because in that lonely and forbidding region, thieves and thugs of all kinds could hide and pounce upon travelers to rob them. Here again, the pages of Scripture came alive to us. We saw the mound where Jericho had been, but in 1935 there had been little excavation by the archaeologists to expose any ruins for us to see. Of course we remembered how “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho, and the walls came a-tumblin’ down.”

A few hundred yards away was the Jordan River, which was a bit disappointing after some of the hymns and poetry we had heard. It was a rather small muddy stream which would not have been difficult to ford… but we knew that when Joshua led his people across it was flood season and required the miracle that God performed. We stepped on, but did not cross, the Alanby Bridge connecting Palestine with the nation of Jordan which, being under French control, would have required another visa. We drove from there several miles south to the Dead Sea which lives up to its name. With all the salt and chemicals in it, there is a sulfuric smell. I stuck my hand in the water up to my elbow and when I drew it out it was salty and oily and refused to dry off despite the super intense heat of the day. It is said that a swimmer literally cannot sink because of the heavy concentration of salt.

Frankly, we were glad to leave and return to Jerusalem where it was cooler. On our return trip we passed through the village of Bethany, just two or three miles from the city. There is nothing special to see there, and no one pointed out the home of Mary and Martha and Lazarus. Clearly it was the most convenient place for Jesus to stay when he visited Jerusalem as recorded in the Gospels. Its proximity to Jerusalem helps account for the tremendous sensation caused in the city by the miracle performed by Jesus in raising Lazarus from the dead. My most vivid recollection of Bethany is of a man by the roadside hawking “David-y slings.” The fact that this was “Bethany” and not “Bethlehem,” the city of David, did not seem to bother him so long as the tourists came by and bought one.

We visited the Mount of Olives, which is separated from Jerusalem by a small valley. Jesus could have walked out through the “Gate called Beautiful” and in a very few minutes reached the olive orchards and gardens on the slopes of the mountain. We were shown one garden, said to be Gethsemane, where there were ancient gnarled olive trees reputed to be several thousand years old… and they certainly looked like it. Whether or not this particular garden was the one Jesus used as a place of prayer, we do not know, but it was certainly very much like it.

The place of Jesus’ crucifixion is not known for certain, but we did see what is called “Gordon’s Calvary” which is a great stone formation just outside the Damascus Gate north of the city. It is just the sort of place which would be suitable for executions, but no one knows the real place. Personally I think God has allowed all the location of the actual “holy places” to become blurred and indistinct through the ravages of time and warfare so that none of them can really become a place to be worshiped.

Our longest excursion took several days, when we headed in our “chauffeured” car to the north. Occasionally along the highway we saw Bedouins in their tents, surrounded by live stock, children, and little gardens scratched out of the dry soil. When we stopped to see them, we were invariably invited to come in and visit with these hospitable people. We stopped near the ancient city of Samaria at Jacob’s well, which is fairly well authenticated. A candle in a little cage was lowered by a long cord while we looked down, and we confirmed that, just as the woman of Samaria said to Jesus, “the well is deep,” (John 4:11)… in fact it is very, very deep.

Along the way various towns mentioned in the Bible were pointed out until we came to Nazareth for lunch. The town was on the side of a hill and rather squalid and dirty. While of course the home and carpentry shop of Joseph and Mary are pointed out for the benefit of tourists, the only spot that seemed real was the well at the lower part of the village where the women were drawing water, washing vegetables and laundry, and gossiping as I am sure Mary would have done. My single strongest memory of Nazareth is that it was swarming with flies, especially in the little cafe where we ate.

In the afternoon we drove down to the Sea of Galilee, about 600 feet below sea level but quite pleasant. There was more grass and vegetation on the hill sides than elsewhere and of course the beautiful and calm sea below us as we drove down. We spent the night at a small convent by the seaside, but in the afternoon walked along the shore to Capernaum. Now we knew we were literally “in the footsteps of the Master” and could imagine Him sitting on the hillside teaching the multitudes, pointing to the lilies of the field and the farmer sewing his seed, or calling to the fishermen who still sail their little boats on the sea. There was no modernization, no tourist busses or hotels, no industrial complexes, no bustling businesses… all seemed very much as it had been since the time of Jesus. Capernaum must have been a very small village, and we were shown the foundation of several houses and that of the ancient synagogue. It did not take much imagination to see where Peter lived and provided a home away from home for his Master. With all this mental picture of this whole region, I am reluctant to ever try to see it again, now that so much change has taken place.

The next morning we took the highway north-east of the Sea of Galilee to Damascus, pausing briefly at the Jordan River border where we crossed into Syria, controlled by the French. Formalities were brief and we drove up through the now famous Golan Heights along the route the Apostle Paul may have taken when he saw his vision of the resurrected Savior and had his life turned around completely. Damascus was more like the oriental cities familiar to us in Asia… crowded and dirty, with shops spilling into the streets and merchants hawking their wares. About my only recollection of the place is walking along the “Street called Straight” which was anything but straight. It was narrow and crooked, more like passing through a busy bazaar than anything else. After eating lunch we drove due west.

Mid afternoon found us at Baalbek in the valley between the Anti-Lebanon Mountain range (which we had crossed) and the Lebanon Mountain range to the west between us and the Mediterranean Sea.¹ We spent the night in a large tourist hotel. That afternoon we toured the great temple for which the place is justly famous and were awed by the gigantic size of its construction. Here the ancient Phoenicians had enshrined their god Baal, the Greeks had built Heliopolis (City of the Sun) , and the Romans had erected the magnificent temple about whose ruins we strolled. No one has figured out how they could use in the structure 750 ton stones, some of them set 20 feet above ground. I saw one which had been cut in a quarry but not used and it was about the size of a modern truck trailer. Many of the great stone columns still stand, and one wonders how they could have been carved, let along raised to such lofty heights.

When we returned to the hotel for dinner that evening, there was a large crowd of people in the lobby, obviously Americans. Since leaving Korea we had not seen any Americans, and Father was curious as to who they might be, especially since he detected a “southern” accent. Not knowing how to get introduced he spoke loudly across the room to my Aunt Margaret, “My, how I would like to have some hot biscuits tonight!” That promptly broke the ice and introductions were made all around. We discovered that this party included many people from in or near Charlotte, N.C., some of them Presbyterians with whom my parents had mutual acquaintances.²

Our route back to Jerusalem took us across the Lebanon Mountains. We spotted some snow along the highway, and a few groves of cedar trees, although most of the famous “cedars of Lebanon” seemed to have disappeared. Reaching the coast at Beirut we drove south along the Mediterranean coast past Tyre and Sidon to Haifa and spent the night in some kind of monastery on Mt. Carmel where Elijah had his great contest with the prophets of Baal. Our final day took us back to Jerusalem where we boarded the night train for Cairo, Egypt.

We were in Egypt only two days but two places stand out in my memory. One was our visit to the Pyramids and Sphinx. When we arrived at their location it was decided to ride camels which could be hired for the tour. They were kneeling on the ground and each had an owner who led him (her) around. When we climbed on their backs it took considerable persuasion to get the lazy beasts to stand, and when they did it seemed they stood on their hind legs first and then on their front legs which made us feel we might fall off. They complained and whined as though we were intolerable burdens for them to endure. Their gait was a peculiar circular one as though putting down each foot separately. Our attendants told each of us the name of our camel, such as “Queen Victoria” or “Prince Albert.” Father asked what his camel’s name was and nearly fell off when told, “Whiskey and Soda!”

The size of the stones with which the great pyramid was built amazed us. They are about waist high and to clamber up to the top by what amounts to steps of that height would be quite a feat. As it was we went up the side by an easier route for a short distance and then entered the pyramid, first going down a long passage and then up another quite a distance so that we must have reached a point close to the heart of the structure. The passage by which we went up was not very wide but had an extremely high ceiling. At the top we found ourselves in a large room with a stone sarcophagus and nothing else. The place was looted of all its original treasures long ago. We were told there were other rooms above or below, but they could not be entered. It was awesome to visit this place with its evidence of the engineering skills of a civilization thousands of years ago.

My other particular memory of Cairo is of our visit to her museum where we spent most of a day. The tomb of Tutankhamon, the pharaoh of Egypt who died in 1335 B.C. had been discovered not many years before our trip. Its contents of glittering gold had been moved to the museum and occupied a tremendous area. His mummy had been encased in several nested coffins inside a large room-size golden “cage” which was inside other “cages” along with all the possessions he supposedly would need in the after world. How much gold and precious stones were involved, we didn’t know, but it was magnificent evidence of the wealth and power of ancient Egypt in an era not too far from that of Moses who had been raised in a court of similar splendor to enjoy “all the pleasures of Egypt.”

As we returned to Port Said and boarded our second P. & O. steamer, we concluded our two week visit to the Holy Land. Years later, it seemed that in that short time I had received more education and understanding of Bible geography, culture, and history than in all my years in seminary put together. It made almost all the history and scenes related in Scripture come alive when ever I read about them. My parents certainly got their money’s worth during that time in terms of contributing to my preparation in every way, especially for the ministry.

Sailing across the Mediterranean, we stopped briefly and went ashore for a few hours at the port of Valletta, capital of Malta. The city is on the top of high cliffs that drop straight down to the sea in the harbor and it was necessary to climb long flights of stone steps to the street level at the top. Again we were reminded that the Apostle Paul was ship-wrecked on some part of this island on his way to Rome. We made three other brief stops in the Mediterranean: Marseille (France), Tangier (Morocco), and Gibraltar. I believe the only place we visited during the very short visit in Marseille was a famous cathedral on a high hill.

My outstanding memory of Marseille is that my Uncle George Hopper came aboard there and sailed with us to Tangier. He was a U.S. consul assigned (I think) to Algiers at that time and had made this visit especially to see his siblings (Father and Aunt Margaret) and the rest of our family whom he had not seen for many years. During the days between Marseille and Tangier, where he disembarked, we spent many hours sitting in deck chairs while he regaled us with tales of their childhood and of his many experiences in different lands as a consul. We were not permitted to go ashore at Tangier or Gibraltar, though of course we had a good sight-see of the famous rock of Gibraltar.

With the Silver Jubilee of the Royal Couple in full swing when we arrived, London was in a festive mood. We spent two weeks in England and Scotland, but I have no recollection of where we stayed during those visits. We saw the usual sights of the “Changing of the Guards” at Buckingham Palace, the British Museum, Westminster Abbey, and so on. Father was especially interested in seeing where the Westminster Divines had devised our confession and catechisms, and the tombs of famous men such as David Livingstone.

At the British Museum we spent considerable time but could not begin to explore it completely. Father took care that we should see the Codex Sinaiaticus, one of the oldest Greek biblical manuscripts, which had been found by Tischendorf a century before at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. Only two years before our visit it had been bought by popular subscription and placed in this museum. We also saw the famous Rosetta Stone, which had provided the key to solving the riddle of the Egyptian hieroglyphics.

When we were in St. Paul’s cathedral, Father was reading inscriptions inside the dome far above us, but I was unable to see any writing at all. This alerted my parents to the fact that I was very near sighted, and had probably been that way for some time and did not know it. As soon as we reached America they saw to it that I was provided with glasses. Other excursions took us to Warwick Castle and the Shakespeare Country so that our education in British History and Literature was also enhanced.

The “Flying Scotchman” carried us by rail to Edinburgh. This was one of the most famous and fastest trains in the world at that time, advertised as a 12-hour nonstop ride. There were no such inventions as diesel locomotives, and a coal burning train required a special feature in order to have enough water to supply the boilers for such a long time. At intervals along the route water troughs were between the rails, and a scoop under the engine sucked up water into the tanks while the train kept moving. In Edinburgh, we visited the usual tourist places, but again Father was particularly interested in Presbyterian History and we saw everything possible connected with the life and work of John Knox… his home, St. Giles Cathedral, and Holy Rood Palace where he preached to (at) Mary, Queen of Scots. We also took one of the day long excursions to several lakes (such as Lock Lomond) to enrich our understanding of some of Sir Walter Scott’s novels.

We sailed on our third P. & O. steamer from Liverpool across the Atlantic to Boston. After so much time at sea and more than seven years away from America all of us wanted badly to go ashore and see the sights of this city too. But we were told that our ship would only be in port a couple of hours and that we could not go in to town. However, we were allowed to walk up and down the dock and stretch our “sea-legs” for a while. Instead of only a few hours in Boston, the ship stayed tied to the dock all day long, so we were completely disgusted that we had not had the opportunity to tour some of the historic sites in that city. Another short sail and we passed the Statue of Liberty into New York harbor. As we entered one door of the pullman coach that night to travel to Charlotte, N.C., who should be entering the door at the other end but some of the people we had met that night in the hotel in Baalbek, many weeks before!

The first half of our furlough year was spent in Rock Hill, S.C. and the rest in Richmond, Va. Rock Hill was the home of my mother’s family, the Barron clan. Oakland Avenue seemed to be lined with Barron residences. Mother was one of eight brothers and sisters, all of whom (except mother) lived on that street except two who were living in places less than 25 miles away. One brother (Uncle Archie) was a doctor in Charlotte. Uncle John was a banker at the Peoples’ National Bank and was highly admired and trusted because he was credited with saving that bank from going under during the Depression when almost all other banks failed. The other three brothers (Ed, Will, and Earl) ran the Rock Hill Hardware Company along with the three sons (Edwin, Billy, & Caldwell) of the oldest brother… making six “Mr. Barrons” in the store.³

Aunt Lottie Barron was the only unmarried one. She taught history at the Winthrop Training School where I had the fall semester of my second year of high school. Student teachers from Winthrop College across the street were trained there, using us as guinea pigs. Aunt Lottie was a first-rate teacher, and an out-spoken critic of Hoover, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, an ardent supporter of Roosevelt and the “New Deal,” and was seldom lacking in a firm and incontrovertible opinion on nearly any subject. My other teachers were excellent too, and I remember the names of all of them: Miss Poag (English), Miss Rogers (mathematics), Miss Ingram (Latin), and Mr. Blakely (Physical Education.) Miss Rogers once told her student teacher before class that there was one boy who would figure out a shorter way to work a problem in algebra than the illustration in the text book. Sure enough, when I raised my hand to point this out, there was a knowing wink between the teachers and I learned of the prediction afterwards by the grapevine.

I tried going out for football practice a few times, but besides having no knowledge whatever of the game, I was too light-weight and quit after a day or so. I continued in scouting in the local troop and once I walked with another boy to Fort Mill and back to complete the fourteen mile hiking requirement. Father was away most of the fall working on his Th.D. at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond. Meanwhile we lived in a rented house right behind the Oakland Avenue Presbyterian Church and only a block or so from Winthrop College. Now and then we attended that church but we usually went to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church down town. All the Barrons belonged there and as a rule every one of them was present. The session and deaconate was liberally sprinkled with their names. We sang the metrical version of the Psalms, as was the practice in that denomination. The pastor (Dr. Rogers) had served there more than 50 years and frequently repeated his soaring cadenzas of flowery oratory which the younger Barrons knew by heart and could imitate much to our amusement. Irene Barron (daughter of my Uncle Will, and now Mrs. Robert Lee Scarborough) was only a year or so older than I, so my sister Mardia and I especially enjoyed her company.

We made several visits to Sharon, some 25 miles away, where my Aunt Ola Hunter lived. Her husband, the Rev. Ebenezer Hunter, was pastor of the little rural A.R.P. church there all his life. The church could not give him full support, so he farmed on the side. Aunt Ola kept chickens, raised a garden, did a lot of canning, and sumptuously fed us “country style.” Uncle Eb was chairman of the board of Erskine college for many years, and from all reports ruled that institution with an iron hand. He also headed a committee to edit a new Psalmbook for the A. R. P. denomination and used to practice some of these musical versions of the Psalms on us in the evenings. Although loyal to his church, he also liked to sing hymns with us “ordinary” Presbyterians. He chewed tobacco and we sat for hours in the rockers on the front porch, feet on the rail, watching him accurately hit any target he wanted in the yard. Thereby hangs another tale, too.

In the village of Sharon was a wealthy man who was the “politician type” and very well known by everyone in the vicinity. One day his wife was shot to death. The man was not a member of Uncle Eb’s church, but since they knew each other, naturally Uncle Eb went to call on him. It was a hot August day, and while there offering his condolences, Uncle Eb happened to aim a spit of tobacco juice into the fireplace, where it sizzled on the grate although there was no fire. Later, when he returned home, Uncle Eb began to wonder why on such a hot day there had been a fire in the fireplace. This seemed suspicious so he reported it to the sheriff who investigated and found remnants of the man’s bloody charred clothing which led to the arrest and conviction of the bereaved husband who had killed his wife.

We also visited my Uncle Archie and Aunt Alice in Charlotte. Some years before, just after their marriage when they were getting started in that city, they were staying temporarily in an apartment on the 10th floor of the Charlotte Hotel, probably the tallest building there. One afternoon she was preparing to go out to a party and reached out to an outside window box to pluck a flower to pin on her dress. The rug slipped under her feet and she tumbled out the window. She bounced on two parallel flag staffs, went through the glass awning over the sidewalk and landed with no major injuries. In fact she was able to tell people at once to notify her hostess at the party that she would not be there!

The last half of our furlough was spent in Richmond, Va. We lived in an apartment at Mission Court, the furlough home for foreign missionaries. Father was completing his work on his doctorate while running around making missionary addresses. As I recall the Shive family, missionaries to the Belgian Congo, had the apartment just below us. We attended the Ginter Park Presbyterian Church and I was a member of the young peoples’ group there. I went to the Thomas Jefferson High School which was new and quite a distance from Mission Court, so I somehow acquired a bicycle to ride back and forth. In those days traffic was not nearly as dangerous as today. That school was an enormous square building, three stories high. It seemed to me that each side of the square and all three floors were exactly alike, and with twelve possibilities to confuse me I was completely lost the first day and late for all classes.

The Latin teacher is the only one I remember because she was literally a “holy terror.” The work in her class was about a semester ahead of my previous lessons, and she used to bless me out in rather strong language for being so stupid that I could not recite properly in class. Grades were given out at the end of each of the four months, and they were successively D, C, B, and A so that by the end of the semester she publicly commended me on making such improvement… but I nearly died trying to memorize Julius Caesar in the process. My only extra-curricula activity in the school was playing the violin in the orchestra. Once we accompanied the school choral group putting on the “Mikado” in the “Mosque” civic auditorium in down-town Richmond.

Furlough over, the Hopper family returned to Korea, taking the train across the continent and a ship across the ocean. Such train trips were long, three or four days, but we enjoyed the scenery, eating in the diner, and sleeping on the pullman. Among the fellow passengers on the ship were Dr. and Mrs. P. Frank Price, veteran missionaries to China, and well known all over our church. He had just been moderator of the 1936 General Assembly meeting of the Presbyterian Church, U.S. and now at the age of 72 was returning to China. It was a rare privilege to be exposed to this great man and learn of his 46 years of experience in China. Mrs. Price was about the same age as he and both were healthy and active. As is often the case on passenger steamers, there was a day of shipboard contests with deck games of various kinds. Both Mrs. Price and I were the finalists in a tournament of throwing rubber suction cup darts at a target on a bulkhead. With a 15-year old pitted against this grand-mother there was enormous interest on ship-board and a great many rooters on hand for the final contest. Both of us made high scores, but youth won out… and I can assure you there never was a better loser than Mrs. Price!

Robert Alexander Webb, the third child of Robert Clark and and Elizabeth Eaton (Dortch) Webb, was born on the twentieth day of September, 1856, in Oxford, Mississippi. His father served as a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church and his children were from infancy brought up according to the strict methods of the Presbyterian Church of their day. In 1871 the family removed to Nashville, Tennessee. The mother died in 1873 and the summer of that year Nashville was visited by a very severe epidemic of cholera. Robert had a very violent attack of this dreadful disease. He was brought near to the gates of death. Convinced that his recovery was due to the special blessing of God, be interpreted it as God’s confirmation of his call to the ministry of the Gospel.

The Presbytery of Nashville licensed him to preach and in 1883 he was ordained by the Presbytery of Bethel, South Carolina. For the next few years he served churches in North and South Carolina. He was serving the Westminster Church in Charleston, South Carolina, when in 1892 he was called to the Chair of Systematic Theology in the Southwestern Presbyterian University. Here he served with distinction for sixteen years and was then urged to accept the Chair of Systematic Theology in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky at Louisville in 1908. In this institution he taught apologetics and systematic theology until his sudden death on May 23, 1919.

The Man

One of Dr. Webb’s pastors described him in these words “Dr Webb was a true man, strong, purposeful, courageous, striving to use to the most the powers with which God had endowed him. He was intensely human in the best sense of the term. To use a phrase common in the old days in the South, ‘He was a born gentleman.’ " He was a magnificent specimen of manhood redeemed by Christ.

Dr. Webb was recognized as a deeply spiritual Christian. He was conscious of his lost estate as a sinner under condemnation of God’s law. He realized his own helplessness but saw in Jesus Christ a Saviour able to save to the uttermost. His spiritual life was nourished by his ardent study of the Word of God and prayer. One of his colleagues remarked, “Was spirit more Johannine than his? O yes, he could dame up in wrath, his tongue could flame and burn, but that was only when his Saviour was robbed of His royal dues or the truth he loved and defended was attacked. For the rest he walked among us as an ‘other worldly-minded man.’ How tender and filial were his prayers in our morning chapel exercises! How he soared as he approached the Throne! How childlike his faith! How absolute his submission to the will of God! To me personally these morning prayers of Dr. Webb were an unfailing benediction.”

Preacher

Although Dr. Webb served only ten years as a pastor of churches, he won the love and confidence of his people as he preached the Word which fed and nourished their souls. It was as a preacher that be attracted the attention that sought him for the chair of theology in training young men for the ministry. His parishioners stated that Dr. Webb generally selected the more profound truths, the great fundamental doctrines of the Bible for exposition. He refused to discuss questions of society or politics as affecting communities. His message was to individuals, urging subjection to Christ, believing that if a soul surrendered to Christ completely that soul could be trusted under the guidance of God’s Spirit to settle questions of secular duty and to determine with other Christians what duty is owed to God and what to Caesar. In the writings of Dr. Webb it is evident that he believed that the influence of the Church on secular life is indirect. It was to influence the world by bringing a new life to the individual. He knew that in this manner the Church of God could most powerfully bless the world.

One who observed Dr. Webb’s pulpit ministry remarked, “is Dr. Webb’s preaching there was as earnestness, as unction, and a tenderness, which indicated his deep sense of the greatness of the issues at stake, the salvation of immortal souls, and while he depended on the Holy Spirit for results of his ministry, yet he realized his personal responsibility for declaring the truth and this sense of having to answer to God gave to his delivery a certain sense of laboriousness, of weariness, as if bearing a great burden.”

In Dr. Webb’s thinking Christian preaching and Christian theology were closely allied. He felt that so long as there is Christian preaching there must necessarily be Christian theology, for theology has as its mission the investigation of the message the preacher is commissioned to proclaim, in all of his pulpit ministrations he never forgot that “the thing preached,” the “kerugma,” “the Word of the Gospel,” constituted the most vital part of preaching. He insisted that so long as there is a Christian Church there must be a Christian theology and this Christian theology must be preached. This preacher was never afflicted with what Barth has called the children’s disease of being ashamed of theology,” even in the pulpit. He knew that Christian experience is contingent upon Christian facts, therefore it becomes the duty of the preacher to pass on to the waiting congregation clear statements of Christian truth.

The Theologian

When Dr. Webb was called to the chair of theology in the divinity school of Southwestern Presbyterian University in 1892, he succeeded Dr. Joseph R. Wilson, the father of President Woodrow Wilson. It was not long until Dr. Webb vindicated for himself a place as one of the great theological teachers of America. He was enthusiastic in his study of the science of theology and he infused this enthusiasm into his students. To him theology was nothing less than “the Queen of Sciences.” He accepted the Bible in its plain sense as the Word of God, the inspired and infallible guide in the service of God. He agreed with the Schmalkald Articles of 1537 which declared, “The Word of God should establish the articles of faith, and none other, not even an angel.” He also accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith and the catechisms as the greatest and fullest uninspired summary of the doctrines of the Bible separately and in their relations to each other.

One of the most marked characteristics of Dr. Webb’s mind was his clearness of vision. It has been said that whatever truth he received he saw it distinctly in its separate value and saw it all around in its relation to its bearing on other truths. He was gifted in expression and explaining the truth with marvelous clearness. He had the lucidity of Calvin, but none of his verbosity. He was a master of English style and was able to express his thoughts so clearly that all could understand. So clear and simple were his theological expositions that he could use them as sermons and the ordinary congregation would listen to him for an hour in rapt attention.

Probably the largest personal influence on Dr. Webb’s theological thinking was that of his teacher and father-in-law, Dr. John L. Girardeau. Many of the germinal thoughts expressed by Dr. Girardeau were later expanded by Dr. Webb. The subject of Adoption was one that intrigued Dr. Girardeau and was developed by Dr. Webb to the highest point of excellence.

Although Dr. Webb commanded the whole field of theology and the philosophies underlying or akin to them, he was primarily a Calvinist theologian. He believed in the Calvinistic system on the ground of both Scripture and reason. Such themes as the Absolute Sovereignty of God and His electing love, the real Deity and genuine Humanity of Christ, the Son of God, the necessity and the efficacy of Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice as the Representative of His people fascinated him. He believed that these truths should be the burden of every minister’s message.

Due to Dr. Webb’s exalted conception of theological science he had a burning passion to magnify his office as a teacher of theology. To him his work as a teacher of theology was a high honor and a great joy. To get some idea of this I want to quote a few paragraphs from Dr. Webb’s induction address to the chair of theology in the Presbyterian Seminary of Kentucky. The subject of this address Dr. Webb declared:

My task is not irksome, my duties are not drudgery. The subject which I teach fascinates my mind, charms my powers, and evokes my enthusiasm. To walk the raised fields of sacred truth with aspiring young men puts me on my mettle, challenges my spirit, and converts my occupation into a daily delight.

In signalizing my induction into my professorship I shall attempt the comparison of the Old Theology and the New with a view to showing that the Old is better, that the hour has not come for the abandonment of the faith of the fathers.

I begin by saying that Systematic Theology is becoming once more the dynamic center of Christian truth. The best apologetic is that harmonious and self-consistent statement of Christian doctrine which articulates with the human soul as the tenon fits the mortice. The facts of nature must be reduced to scientific form in order to satisfy, to command, to entertain, to instruct; and the public demand shall not be dispensed by its teachers in a disorganized and disunited condition. The ‘New Theology’ which had its rise in a revolt against dogma is becoming to proclaim its triumph, make an inventory of its findings, and formulate its conclusions into a complete scheme of dogmatics. It cannot be denied: man’s supreme concern, man’s supreme demand, is for a system of religious truth which is Biblical and self-consistent, satisfying his reason, his conscience, and his heart.

Continuing in this address Dr. Webb further affirmed his faith in the Old Theology in this significant paragraph.

For centuries the Church has been laboring to develop just such a system of Christian doctrine. Through controversies within and without, by criticisms friendly and hostile, by study and prayer, by altering and amending, by readjusting and restating, progress has been made in clarifying and defining and articulating the tenets of the Christian faith. In this way an historical outline of the faith has been created, the general trend of doctrine has been established, a traditional orthodoxy has been defined, the communis consensus of Christendom has been registered. These generic findings of the past verified by the studies and experiences of the fathers, baptized by the blood of the martyrs have come to be denominated the ‘Old’ or the ‘Traditional’ theology, and define the lines within which the conservative student prosecutes his investigations and seeks to make more accurate adjustments. He declines to nullify historical results achieved by a Church which has been under the tuition of the Spirit, – to abandon that highway which is crowded with the foot-prints of the flock of Christ.

Dr. Webb studied very closely the New Theology with its radical reconstruction and did not fail to point out its dangers. He saw that it was a “cross” between rationalism and orthodoxy with the voice of Jacob but the hands of Esau. He recognized that the New Theology diluted every fundamental article in the Christian religion and therefore must be considered a mortal enemy of historic Christianity.

Dr. Henry E. Dosker, the distinguished professor of Church History, knew how to evaluate theologians. This was his specialty. After careful analysis Dr. Dosker affirmed, “Dr. Webb was, I think, the greatest theologian of the Southern Church. I say it without disparagement of his co-laborers in this field, and barring Dr. B. B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary, I know of no greater theologian in all the Presbyterian Church than was Dr. Webb.”

The Writer

Although Dr. Webb prepared his lectures with the greatest of care it is unfortunate that so few have been given to the public. During his lifetime he published a series of lectures on The Christian Hope which were delivered before the Columbia Theological Seminary on the Smyth Foundation. He also published a treatise on The Theology of Infant Salvation. In evaluating this latter book Dr. Charles R. Hemphill wrote, “So far as my knowledge goes, his work on Infant Salvation is the most comprehensive discussion of this subject, and not only vindicates Calvinism from the charge of holding or of logically necessitating the damnation of some infants, but convincingly shows it to be the only system that on the basis of the Scriptures provides for the salvation of all persons who die in infancy.” After his death Dr. Charles R. Hemphill selected some of Dr. Webb’s lectures and published them under the title Christian Salvation. The entire edition of this book was sold quickly and has had tremendous influence upon the preaching of Southern Presbyterian ministers.

This present document represents the fourth volume of Dr. Webb’s works. This monograph on Adoption is unique. So far as my knowledge of theological literature goes there is nothing in existence comparable to these lectures. They constitute an invaluable contribution to Reformed Theology.

Missionary children growing up in Korea anticipated “going to PYFS” with anticipation and excitement. After the elementary school years with almost no American playmates and very little activities outside the home and immediate family, we could look forward to “Pyeng-yang Foreign School” where there would be many class-mates, different teachers, and a whole new way of life. Of course there was also speculation as to what dormitory life would be like, how we would get along with a strange room-mate or two, and how a long separation from the protection and guidance of parents could be endured. From the viewpoint of a parent now, more than 50 years later, I realize that these questions were of far greater concern to my own parents than they were to a 13 year old boy like myself.

This traumatic transition was made far easier because we children and our parents had known for years that it was coming, had often talked of it, and were thoroughly prepared to accept it. Because we had lived in Pyeng-yang for some months in the fall of 1931 while Father was teaching at the Presbyterian Seminary and I had been in the fifth grade, I had some general idea of what to expect at PYFS. Academically, mother had done everything possible (especially in mathematics and English) to fit us for the curriculum in Pyeng-yang. She even ordered a Latin text-book and taught me my “amo, amas, amat” in advance so I would have a head start in that subject. We were instructed how to take care of our clothes, how to keep our room neat and clean, what to do if we got sick, and seemingly endless other matters. Mother had ordered from America or had made locally all the clothes I would need and had gathered sheets and blankets and towels. My laundry number (I think it was No. 17) had been sewn with care on every item and my trunk and suitcase were packed with great care.

While the payment of fees to the school were cared for by my parents, a system was worked out for my “spending money.” From the first, I was not given any specified amount as an allowance, but a sum of money to use as needed without any fixed limits. We students could deposit our money in the school office, where we were issued pass-books and little check-books to withdraw funds just like dealing with a bank… good training for all of us. The only condition my parents made was that I periodically send home a list of how the money was used… and for many years even nickels and dimes spent were duly recorded and reported once a month. I cannot recall a single time when such expenditures were questioned or rebuked in any way. Placing this trust in me was an excellent way to make me to act responsibly in the use of what was then their money and is now mine. Possibly this is the reason why during our marriage of 45 years (as of 1990) Dot and I have never lived on a fixed budget of so much for food, so much for clothes, etc. but have tried to use our resources wisely as needed… and we have never been in debt!

Travel to Pyeng-yang involved an 18 hour train trip. Pyeng-yang is the largest city in the northern part of Korea, and is currently (1991) the capital of communist North Korea. As I recall, my mother accompanied me on the first trip and we stopped long enough in Seoul enroute for me to have some dental work done. The trip from Mokpo to Seoul was approximately 12 hours and from Seoul to Pyeng-yang another 6 hours. This was such a long trip that during my years in school I never went home except at Christmas and summer vacation time. One night on the train was necessary, and we always rode in the “third class sleepers.” Three sleeping bunks were stacked in a tier, one above the other. Two of these “triple deckers” faced each other in sections along one side of the aisle like ordinary train seats, and on the other side of the aisle (which was off-center) similar bunks were situated lengthwise of the coach. The bunks were just like ordinary train seats except about 6 feet long. All this was calculated for cramped discomfort with maximum togetherness in minimum space. The only “pullman” serving our mission area left Mokpo in the evening and reached Seoul in midmorning the next day.

Missionary children going to Pyeng-yang from Kwangju had to ride a connecting train to “Sho-ter-ri” (now Song-jung-ni), and those from Soonchun, Chonju, and Kunsan rode other trains to “Ree-ree” (now Iri) to join our train. There were no “sleepers” on their trains, but their “day” coaches were attached to our train from Mokpo. Since it was not permitted by the railway system for them to buy tickets for sleeper reservations in their own cities, and all the spaces would be taken up by other passengers when they reached these connecting points, it became the practice for them to write or telegraph asking us to buy advance reservations for them in Mokpo. Often I would be holding quite a large bundle of sleeper tickets when we met our friends at these points. Imagine the excitement when during in the night, perhaps at ten o’clock in Sho-ter-i and at mid-night in Ree-ree, large groups of American high school children moved themselves and their baggage to our sleeper from coaches which had just been hooked to our train. There were loud greetings with friends they had not seen for a while, as they settled themselves on their bunks. I am sure the other passengers were vastly entertained and perhaps displeased at all the disturbance created by these noisy foreign students, especially since it was late at night before the whole crowd quit talking and went to sleep.

Among other warnings given by our parents as we left home were orders to beware of “detectives.” Korea was now oppressively ruled by her Japanese imperialist conquerors who were in the process of making military moves into Manchuria and North China. Missionaries were regarded with suspicion by the authorities, and all of us Americans were regarded as spies. Possibly they were already planning war with the United States and it was clear that they had embarked on a policy aimed at control of all of East Asia. The Japanese were deeply afraid lest any report that smacked of criticism of their regime be sent abroad, and of course they were always on the alert lest we say or do anything to encourage antiJapanese activities among the Koreans. Our mail was routinely censored and Japanese “detectives” were forever pestering missionaries, coming to our homes, asking all kinds of leading (or absurd) questions, and in general making a nuisance of themselves by attempting to trap us into saying something for which we could be accused.

Missionary children were not exempt from this treatment and we soon learned that wherever we went, even on the train going to school, we were under the watchful eye of detectives. We very soon learned to identify our particular personal sleuth among the other passengers because he would at once try to engage us in conversation with all kinds of questions such as, “What do you think of the Japanese government policies?” or, “Why are you Americans here?” We were trained either to pretend we did not understand, or to say we didn’t know, or to make some other stupid remark. Some detectives liked to practice their English on us, in which case we kids often set them up with all kinds of ridiculous expressions about which we would laugh hilariously later on, mimicking the comical accent of our tormentors. One advantage in all this was that our parents always knew that such a “guardian angel” would guarantee our safe arrival at our destination. We could not have stepped off the train at any stop, or missed a connection, or blundered into any kind of trouble without our private eye watching and reporting our whereabouts. There was a rather long wait between trains in Seoul, and some of the students would go into town briefly, but there was never any danger of them getting lost or failing to keep their travel schedule.

When we crossed the great iron bridge over the Tai-dong River we knew we had arrived in Pyeng-yang, the oldest city in Korea. It was the traditional capital established by Tan-goon, the legendary founder of Korea (2332 B.C.) and boasted an authentic history from the time of King Keui-ja (1122 B.C.) It was rich in the history of various dynasties and rulers, and there were innumerable ancient monuments, gates, pavilions, and temples. Immediately behind our school was a part of what was said to be the wall of Keui-ja and a short distance away an old gate erected a thousand years before… said to be the oldest structure in Korea.

Pyeng-yang was also noted as the point where Protestantism entered Korea when the Rev. Robert J. Thomas was martyred in 1866. This missionary to China had sailed up the Tai-dong river on the “General Sherman” which was attempting to open up Korea to diplomatic relations and commerce. It ran aground opposite the city, and in an incident of which we Americans cannot be proud, the crew antagonized the local populace so that their boat was set afire, and the crew and passengers were killed. Thomas gave out copies of Chinese Scriptures as he died, and through them the first converts to Christ were won. When we were in Pyeng-yang there was an old gate beside the river. I remember that the year Father taught in the seminary he took us there and found the caretaker who unlocked the upper part of the structure for us. We climbed to where we saw the great iron anchor chain of the “General Sherman” locked around one of the columns. Thus in all kinds of ways our education was in an environment of ancient history and culture which not many students are privileged to enjoy.

Our school was located in a suburban area and was a part of the greatest missionary complex in the whole world at that time, so we were told. There was a huge concentration of “Northern” Presbyterian and Methodist missionaries living within walking distance of the school. We were constantly exposed to this unique missionary community of outstanding men and women who laid the foundations of the Korean Church of today. Because of the cooperative work of the several Presbyterian Missions, there were also two “Southern” Presbyterian families. Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Reynolds lived here where he was a professor in the one and only Presbyterian Theological Seminary in the nation. Mr. and Mrs. William Parker lived here where he taught in the Union Christian College (Soong-sil College). There were also extensive medical, Bible institute, and high-school level mission institutions in the area, and all of them were a part of a comprehensive Christian movement. The missionaries took a keen interest in the students at PYFS, opening to us their homes, participating in school activities of every kind, and doing their best to be our parents away from home. Even in the midst of their busy lives, they saw as part of their calling a responsibility for helping to influence and mold our lives.

Arrival at school was always a great time for greeting old friends and making new ones. Students came from every part of Korea except Seoul where there was a large foreign school for local students but no boarding department. There were also quite a few from China, Manchuria, and Japan. These represented many denominations (although mostly Presbyterian and Methodist), and several countries besides the United States, such as Australia and Canada. The principal was Mr. Ralph O. Reiner (known by his affectionate students as “Roar”) of the “Northern” Presbyterian mission. Teachers came from all parts of the U.S. representing various denominations. The school had grown from a small elementary school begun in 1899 to include a full fledged high school of over a hundred students. The academic building provided class-rooms, science laboratory, offices, chapel, and library. There was, of course, a boys’ dormitory and a girls’ dormitory. Kitchen and dining facilities for all of us were in the latter. Tennis courts were opposite these dormitories. While I was there a gymnasium was built, adjacent to the athletic field.

Upon arrival, the immediate concern was: “Which room will I get in the dormitory, and who will be my room-mate?” My first room-mate was Norman Larsen, one of the few students whose parents were not missionaries. They came from Norway, and his father worked with a gold-mining company in the extreme northern part of Korea. We got along amicably but for some reason never developed a strong friendship. We shared a room with two steel cots, a couple of small desks and chairs and a closet. There was a small toilet for the boys on our floor and showers were in the basement. We were expected to take complete care of our rooms, making beds, keeping things straight, and cleaning. Every Saturday morning we underwent “inspection” by the dormitory matron, Miss Lois Blair. She was the daughter of missionaries and though pint sized could keep under discipline a dormitory full of boys by exercising full authority and yet remaining a good friend of all of us.

On Sunday morning we were lined up in the “parlor” for her to inspect fingernails, shoe shines, haircuts, and proper attire for going to Sunday School. By late Sunday afternoon she checked to make sure each of us had written a letter home… under threat of no desert at supper if we failed. This developed a habit which I maintained as long as my parents lived, although when I became a preacher in charge of leading worship services the letter sometimes had to be written the next day. Nevertheless all this discipline was excellent training and I have never regretted any of it.

Our meals were in the dining hall on the first floor of the girls’ dormitory. About eighty boarding students ate together along with most of the faculty who also lived in the dormitories. Every week a new seating arrangement was posted on the bulletin board. At each table there were approximately an even number of boys and girls and usually one teacher. Of course there was either great satisfaction or groaning depending upon whether it was a “good” table or not (meaning our best friends or those we loathed). We stood for the blessing and then sat down. Boys and girls were seated alternately and the boys were expected to pull out the chair and seat the girl next to them.

Food was always good, wholesome, and plentiful… although it would not have been normal had we not complained at times. Once a week the breakfast cereal was “Ladybugs and Beetles.” It was perhaps the most popular, and consisted of boiled beans of two kinds, size, and colors. It was served in large Korean rice bowls and sprinkled with plenty of brown sugar and milk. From a distance of 50 years this dish sounds most un-appetizing but in those days many of us boys could consume more than one bowl. Every Thursday night we had an oriental meal. There were several menus served in turn: Sin-sul-lo (Korean), Man-doos (Chinese), Egg-foo-yong (Chinese), Su-ki-yak-ki (Japanese) and sometimes there was Pool-koh-gi (also Korean)… and always mountains of rice. We ate with chopsticks and thoroughly enjoyed such meals. Otherwise, our meals were fairly conventional American style, although they were largely dependent for ingredients upon what was available in the Korean markets.

Every week-day night we were required to attend study hall at the school for a couple of hours. This was a supervised period either in class-rooms or in the library which was well stocked with everything we needed. When we became seniors we were allowed to study in our own dormitory rooms and to stay up a half hour longer after the usual nine-thirty “bed-time” for other students… provided our grades were above a certain average. I had no trouble with this condition, and was even exempt from most of the final exams that year because of good grades. This room privilege did allow opportunity for some “un-approved” activities.

For instance, we discovered that on the one night each week when ice-cream was our desert for supper, the remnants left in the hand-turned ice-cream freezers in the kitchen were feasted upon by the teachers after we went to bed. This was deemed a grossly unfair infringement on our rights. It happened that we had a pair of twins in our class (Gordon and Helen Kiehn from China) and they shared the use of a portable typewriter. At the appropriate time in the evening, when other students and teachers were at the study hall, Gordon would go to the kitchen in the girls’ dorm and bring back a large bowl of ice-cream which we would consume with great gusto. If challenged as to why he was making a nocturnal visit to the girls’ dorm, he would reply: “I’ve come over to get the typewriter from Helen, " which was understandable and permitted. This went on for quite a while until the faculty appeared to be getting suspicions and we ceased our criminal activity before getting caught!

Tommy Brown was an avid photographer and had flash equipment using magnesium powder set off by an electric spark from a small battery. One night he was playing with this, and devised a way to explode some by using part of a typewriter ribbon can tied below an electric light bulb with the glass broken off. A short piece of lead fuse wire between the two exposed “poles” sparked the powder when contraption was screwed into a light socked and the wall switch was snapped on. It worked so well that he fastened it into the overhead light of a small private bathroom used only by the teacher on our hall. When Mr. Crowder came in and prepared for bed, he stepped into that little room, snapped on the switch, and there was a tremendous flash. The glass shade broke around his head, and the whole place was filled with a cloud of white smoke. He probably knew perfectly well who was responsible, but never said a word to the culprit, now the Rev. Dr. G. Thompson Brown!

A short distance away was the school building where we spent most of our waking hours. The curriculum was the standard one which prepared us to enter college in the United States. Perhaps we did not have the variety of options provided to American students in those days, and certainly not what they can choose today. For instance, I took Latin and mathematics all four years and Miss Blair (our dormitory matron) was my teacher. The only science course I took was chemistry under Mr. Whang, a Korean who was also athletic director. He spoke English fairly well, but I fear we sometimes made fun of his quaint expressions and embarrassed him. Years later he was for a brief time a very high official when Syeng-man Rhee was president of Korea, and then became quite wealthy as a business man, heading a firm with tuna fishing boats in distant waters and a canning factory in Korea. Our music teacher was Mr. Dwight Malsbury who had started me learning the violin when we were in Pyeng-yang when I was in the fifth grade. He was the music professor at the Union Christian College but gave all kinds of instrument lessons and led the band at PYFS. He was a brilliant pianist and also faithfully did street preaching on Sunday afternoons. After World War II he lived in Pusan as a missionary of the Independent Presbyterian Mission, and devoted himself full-time to evangelistic work. I felt that in so doing he neglected his greatest gift as a musician, although he did keep up some of it.

There was great excitement over one “scandal” in the faculty. A young man was teaching in the elementary school and became a good friend of a music teacher considerably older than he. One March day, a Japanese detective came to the principle’s office asking about “Mrs.” Reck. Mr. Reiner replied that there was no “Mrs.” Reck in the school, but that there was a “Mr.” Reck. “Oh no!” insisted the detective, there is a “Mrs. Reck.” Our records show that your “Mr.” Reck married this lady in Hong Kong during the Christmas season.” Mr. Reiner was astounded and as furious as he could be! It was against the school regulations for faculty members to marry each other. He fired them both without hesitation and they left that day, sending a shock wave through the school and the whole community. The couple went to the gold mines in the northern part of the county where Mr. Reck found work at once. Some time later, while I was still at PYFS word came that he had been killed in an ore-crushing machine. The school authorities had the grace to allow his body to be returned for burial in Pyeng-yang, and we all attended the funeral held in the school gymnasium. I never did learn how, in the days before there was any air travel, this couple managed to get all the way to Hong Kong and back by boat during the short Christmas vacation.

Perhaps the teacher who influenced us the most was Dr. Donald G. Miller.² His first year in Pyeng-yang was during my sophomore year which I spent in America when our family was on furlough. But he was there in my junior year when I studied English and Bible under him. Although under a three year contract, he was so anxious to return and marry the lady to whom he was engaged that he stayed only two years. He was a graduate of Biblical Seminary in New York and an excellent Bible teacher using the “inductive” methods taught in that institution. Because classes were small, some were combined, as was the case for junior and senior Bible. Ruth Bell (now Mrs. Billy Graham) from China was a senior and in the same Bible class with us. Dr. Miller was then a Free Methodist, but Ruth was a dyed-in-the wool Presbyterian, and the two of them had great debates about predestination. She must have won the battle, because not many years later after returning to the States he became a Presbyterian. When I was in my second year at seminary (1943) it was with great enthusiasm that I could welcome Dr. Miller to Richmond as my English Bible professor and I was privileged to be his student for two more years.

Dr. Miller was not only influential in the class-room but in other ways too, especially as our scout master. Most of the boys in the school were in the Boy Scout troop and he took his duties seriously, faithfully holding the meetings, helping us with our advancement, and taking us on hikes and camping trips. I reached the rank of “Star” Scout and at graduation exercises received the Bob Erwin Award as a “distinguished” scout. (Bob came from China and his parents set up this award in his memory after he was killed one night on the railway tracks behind our dormitory under rather mysterious circumstances. Some of us always felt that he took his own life.) In Dr Miller’s first year at PYFS he somehow managed to acquire a place out in the woods not too far away where the troop built a small cabin and we could spend the night occasionally. I still remember how on several occasions he cooked oatmeal for breakfast in a five-gallon oil can, and then afterwards scrubbed out that messy can with his own hands.

Once Dr. Miller took us for a week-end to a distant mountain fortress… a great walled area constructed by some Korean war-lord hundreds of years ago. Each spring it was traditional for the school to allow a day or so holiday for the scout troop to go camping at “Misty Point” which was a bend in a river where we could swim safely. There was a Methodist missionary in Pyeng-yang, Dr. William Shaw, who had served as a chaplain in World War I and loved to be with our Boy Scout troop although he did not have time to serve as scout master. Dr. Miller would invite him to join in some of these outings to lead our devotional services which were always most inspirational and challenging to boys.

Every morning at the school we had a chapel service, attended by all the students and faculty. It was usually led by one of the teachers, and when the principal, Mr. Reiner, rose to make announcements we all trembled, not knowing how or where he was going to lower the boom on us for some real or imagined misdemeanor. There were also outside speakers. I recall that once Bishop Arthur Moore (missionary bishop of the Methodist Church) spoke. Another time there was a little bald-headed man who talked about the healing of Naaman the leper. Every time he mentioned Naaman bathing in the River Jordan he ducked all seven times behind the pulpit leaving only his bald pate visible much to our amusement. Students also took turns leading the service, and I recall doing so at least once. Of course we sang all the hymns, both the great classical numbers and the popular “Gospel” type.

Every Sunday morning we trooped over to the Presbyterian Seminary for Sunday School, usually taught by local missionaries rather than our school teachers who were with us during the week-days. After Sunday School it was customary for all children of “Southern” Presbyterian missionaries to walk over to the home of Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Reynolds. He was usually out preaching somewhere, but “Grandma” Reynolds always welcomed us. She knew all of our parents and families and took personal interest in each of us. The only refreshments she provided were roasted peanuts of which there seemed to be an unlimited supply.

Sunday afternoon we again went to the seminary chapel for the worship service in English attended by the entire missionary community, making quite a large congregation. Our preachers were usually local missionaries but sometimes guests from abroad such a Dr. Robert E. Speer or Bishop Arthur Moore. Occasionally Dr. Reynolds, professor of systematic theology, took his turn preaching. While absolutely orthodox and Biblical in his messages he tended to be rather dry and long-winded. When he prayed he would forget all about his surroundings while talking endlessly to the Lord and would never have come to the “Amen” if “Grand-ma” had not been sitting in the front pew. When she thought that the “conversation” had gone on long enough, she would loudly clear her throat… and the prayer would end abruptly!

On Sunday evenings we had “Christian Endeavor,” and of course all the students were members and expected to attend the meetings. We were divided into groups which usually met in the homes of missionaries in the community. Here again we became friends with these great saints, heard tales of their remarkable experiences, and were exposed to their fine influence. It was also a superb way in which to learn how to be at ease leading in worship, praying in public, and so on. Occasionally I went to Korean Church services. The largest church near our school had so many members that they had a service for the women in the morning and one for the men early in the afternoon. I recall attending one service when about 100 men were baptized. It was necessary to have two ministers going along two lines performing the sacrament at the same time.

Not only in high school, but for the rest of my years in college and seminary, I was more of a student and book-worm than participant in extra-curricula activities. We had a full athletic program (soccer, basketball, ice-hockey, tennis) and I would faithfully take part during the physical education class times, but not much more than that. The only exception was tennis which I enjoyed and played whenever possible but I was never a champion. I was in the school choir, and for a while in the band. There were all kinds of entertainments, parties, athletic contests, and plays. I think I was only in one play and on the stage a moment or two with a one-line or two remark, but I never enjoyed that sort of thing at all.

Dating was allowed but strictly controlled and chaperoned, usually by one or more of our teachers. It was customary for the boys to take the girls to the various school functions, but there was very little of this off campus. In warmer seasons, our class occasionally rented a boat for a ride and picnic up the Tai-dong river, sailing past some of the beautiful hills and colorful pavilions commemorating ancient historical events. The boat had a flat bottom where we could sit, and was propelled by a Korean with a long sculling oar which he twisted from side to side over the stern. Only rarely was there an American movie worth seeing, but occasionally a large group of us would go together with some faculty member to see one of the classics of that era such as “Rose Marie.” With all these activities we never felt deprived of a full and happy life and formed friendships which last until this day. Because we were such a small self-contained community, with each other in the dining room, classroom, athletic field, and other times in between, we never really lacked satisfactory social life.

Because the winters are so cold in Pyeng-yang we did a lot of ice-skating for three months or more. On my first Thanksgiving Day there, we had a holiday. A small river behind our dormitory was frozen solid and I spent almost the whole day learning to skate. The school had a regulation size hockey rink which was flooded regularly for our use in physical education class, for ice-hockey, and for recreation. We had a good hockey team largely made up of boys whose families lived in these cold regions and who had skated almost all their lives. The rest of us would often skate after school in the afternoons and all day Saturday. Sometimes on Saturday night the whole school spent the evening in a skating party. There would be a big fire beside the rink, apples and chestnuts to roast, and everyone had a great good time. Once or twice we went at night across the city down to the Tae-dong River which was solidly frozen. An enormous area had been cleared of snow and a skating oval prepared for the people of the city, a great many of whom enjoyed this sport. Fires were built out on the ice for light, heat, and to roast food. We never seemed to mind the bitter cold temperatures which were often below zero.

During these years we were not unmindful of momentous events taking place all around us. The main double track railroad connecting Japan and China through Korea ran right behind our dormitory, separated only by a low hill which may have been an ancient city wall. This was the main route for transporting invading Japanese troops and military equipment moving into Manchuria and China. Long troop trains and cars loaded with tanks, artillery, trucks, and so on were continually passing along this route. We were forbidden by the suspicious Japanese authorities to climb the hill and watch for fear that we spies might report to our own respective governments what was going on (but we did sneak a look now and then!) A major Japanese airfield was just across the Tae-dong River from the city. In those days planes could not easily fly the long distances from Japan to China but Pyeng-yang was a forward base and close enough for their purposes. We could watch constant dog-fights as their single engine fighters practiced maneuvers overhead. Squadrons of multi-engined bombers would also thunder over-head. Little did we realize that all this would eventually lead to a great world war!

At this point in the manuscript, Joe stops to describe the trip around the world that his family took during their 1935 furlough.

Now we were back in Korea and I began my junior year in High School at Pyeng-yang. That year I roomed with Hamilton (Ham) Talbot (a senior from China) and Walter Levie (a classmate and the son of our mission dentist in Kwangju.) We were great friends. Because seniors could choose their roommates, Walter and I agreed to be together our last year. But the year had hardly started when the matron asked me to room with a new boy from China and put Walter elsewhere, much to our displeasure.

A few days later George Thompson Brown, known as “Tommy,” arrived. His parents were Dr. and Mrs. Frank A. Brown, missionaries to China, and was born in Ruling. He grew up in Suchowfu and had attended Shanghai American School until then. But because the Japanese military action in China made it impossible for him to get to Shanghai, he had taken the long train trip via Manchuria to our school. When Christmas vacation time came, he could not make the trip home so I invited him to come to Mokpo with me and my sister Mardia who was a year behind us in school. Later he and I roomed together for four years at Davidson College, and he married my sister Mardia in Gaither Chapel in Montreat in 1943. At the time he was a lieutenant in the army, and after the war he attended Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, was a pastor in Gastonia for several years, and came to Korea as a fellow missionary.

Superior teachers, distinguished missionaries, exposure to other cultures, and the advantages of travel were all parts of the exceptionally wonderful guidance and training we had during these formative years. Since almost all the students came from homes where both parents were professionally trained as ministers, doctors, nurses, or professors (many with advanced degrees) it is not surprising that the level of education at PYFS was higher than average and that almost all the graduates went on to college and graduate schools. If my memory is correct, a survey at the time the school was closed just before the beginning of World War II, showed that there was a higher percentage of the alumni elected to Phi Beta Kappa than that of any high school in the United States. Naturally the number entering Christian work was also very high. Four members of my class of 1938 became career missionaries of the Presbyterian Church: Virginia Montgomery (Mrs. Don McCall, in Japan and Taiwan), Catherine McLauchlin (Mrs. Lyle Peterson, in Japan), Tommy Brown and I (in Korea). Several other members of our class belonging to other denominations were also in similar work.

Commencement exercises were (I believe) on June 7, 1938. Father preached the baccalaureate sermon on the subject “A Son’s Graduation” based on Heb. 5:8-9. Virginia Montgomery was the class salutatorian, and I was valedictorian. Both of us had to make short speeches. Mine had been written, reviewed by the principal, and memorized. Right in the middle of my “oration” a large formation of Japanese bombing planes flew low over head. The roar was so deafening I had to stop speaking… and nearly lost my place as a result! Somehow I don’t remember too much about it, probably because I was so relieved when it was over.

My sister Mardia graduated from PYFS the following year. My brother George’s education there was cut short in the fall of 1940 when almost all of the missionaries were forced to evacuate… about a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. During the first winter of the Korean War a few missionaries were able to enter Pyeng-yang briefly. They found that most of the mission property, including our school, had become the headquarters of the communist regime of dictator Kim Il-seung, and that is very likely still the case today. But the impact of that school on scores of missionary children, and subsequently through them upon the work of our Lord in many lands around the world can never be measured!

And Paul, having remained many days long, took leave of the brethren and put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila.

Approximately two-thirds of all missionaries in modern times could be called “Daughters of Priscilla,” the first lady to travel to foreign lands witnessing to Jesus Christ. She and her husband, Aquila, were tent-makers by profession, living as Jewish refugees from Rome in Corinth when they heard the Gospel from the Apostle Paul. The epistles mention “the church that is in their house” when they lived later in Ephesus and in Rome, and Paul says that “all the churches of the Gentiles” were grateful to them.¹ Priscilla, usually named before her husband, could be called the “mother of missions,” Today let us recognize the service and example of some of her little known daughters who labored in Korea and deserve far more credit than most of them have received. A century ago when there were few opportunities at home for women to serve professionally in church work, these missionaries, about half of them married and the other half singly, braved stormy seas, primitive living conditions, and hostile cultures to add their testimony to the saving power of Jesus as “the way, the truth, and the life.”

1. Nellie Rankin

My attention was drawn to this subject by some of her letters written 80 years ago which were given to me on my visit to the Independent Presbyterian Church (of Savannah) last year. We spent 38 years in Chonju and we often saw the grave of Miss Nellie Rankin in the quiet little missionary cemetery. From that plot can be seen now a city of over 400,000 and a great school with over 3000 students where once she had been principal for a handful of little girls. You can hear the bell ring from the one church in the city of her day, along with those of over 300 more today. Out among the surrounding mountains, where she struck out alone on horseback into places where no missionary lady had ever been to minister in simple village churches, are now hundreds of congregations. For 75 years, income from her legacy of some $3000, known as the “Nellie Rankin Fund” has supported the education of young Korean women who have lived as Christians in home and church. Yet Miss Rankin served in Korea only four years, from 1907 to 1911, before her life was claimed by appendicitis, for which our modern treatment was unavailable in those days.

The picture cleaned from her letters reveal that Nellie came from a moderately wealthy and comfortable home in Savannah where she could have moved in the highest circles of society, education, business, and church. With this background and a diploma from Agnes Scott College, life could have offered ease and security. Yet, against the wishes of her parents (particularly her father), she sailed for Korea, the Hermit Kingdom. Here her brilliant mind quickly acquired remarkable mastery of a difficult language, her shrewd business ability managed a household, a garden, raising of pigs, purchase of land, and administering a school. She enjoyed picnics, boating, and riding with the few young bachelors available. She craved news of friends and social events of Savannah and was often homesick. But best of all she loved the Koreans who said of her, “Smiles grow wherever Rankin Pouin passes.”

Two years after arrival, she was teaching 3 hours a day in the Girls’ Boarding School, preparing to teach their own written language to illiterate women, rising at 6:00 A.M. to prepare for a day often interrupted by unexpected visitors, talking of taking a trip alone to a distant village to stay a couple of weeks, and humorously telling how her pig got loose, and now a Korean lady’s gift of a hive of bees broke open in her house. Her account of a trip to a mountain region 40 miles from home is priceless: “Last Saturday I came on to this place and it was one of the hardest and most delightful trips I have ever taken. We went over 3 ranges and between dozens of others. The first [and second] range I walked up and down… the third I walked and started to ride down and would have given a pretty if I could have gotten off but I really didn’t dare. We went down the steepest narrowest path I ever saw. A steep cliff above, almost a precipice below and at the bottom a wide river. It made my head swim to look down at it. My foot on one side scraped the bluff while the other hung over the almost perpendicular incline. Night caught us in a mountain wilderness of never ending mountains. Finally the sound of voices could be heard and a group of women came to welcome me. They had come about 2 miles fearing I was lost. I am literally ‘dwelling in the house of the Lord’ as I am keeping house in the little church built on a hill overlooking the village. The wicked flea has a strong fortress on the wall and makes one long for the house where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary will be at rest. People who have never been inside the church are flocking to the afternoon meetings to see the foreigner. I have eaten rice and pickled turnip, sea weed and native sauce till I feel pickled myself. There is no such thing as a timepiece within miles and no bells so people come at all times for classes. Everybody gets up with the first streak of day which is about 4:30 AM now. So from 6:30 AM on they begin to gather. Now when the day is long anyway I hate to get up at five but there is nothing else to do unless I dress, eat and do everything to a grandstand full. Teaching 2 hours in the morning, 2 in the afternoon, and 2 at night about uses up my voice so I really cannot talk to a continual string [of people].

In another village she wrote: “I am in a tiny little valley in the heart of the Chidi mountains. I am teaching three times a day and doing a sideshow act in between. I am the first foreign woman to have ever visited here so am quite a show. The people are very friendly and kind-hearted and have given me their best which is as follows… one room 8x8 ft. The floor is mud with rough matting rugs. In one corner is a big straw sack of grain with 3 smaller ones piled on it. On the other side over my cot is a shelf of two poles with innumerable bags, gourds, etc. piled up. The ceiling which is of twigs tied together with straw string is black from smoke and fly specks. On one wall hangs a large gourd, a mirror that distorts my beautiful features, a bottle of hair oil, and an uninvestigated cruise. Just outside my door hangs the chicken coop… a wicker basket affair. The pig pen is about 6 feet away and the pig is all grunt and growls. Honestly it keeps up a continual racket all day and all night. I have to sit on my cot to comb my hair and I just miss scraping all the dust and fly specks off the ceiling when I am in my stocking feet. The door is 4 by 1 and 1/2 ft. There are holes in the wall which are securely pasted over with paper.

Nellie Rankin could have been the belle of Savannah, but this is how she obeyed the command of her Master, in the text used by another missionary at the Sunday service before her death, words of Jesus to Peter: “What is that to you, You follow Me!”

Mattie Ingold

In 1895, only three years after the first “Southern” Presbyterian missionaries reached Korea, Dr. Mattie Ingold arrived. Entering the medical profession was not easy for a woman in those days, yet records show that some 100 women physicians were serving as missionaries abroad. Great interest and support for their work came from numerous mission societies of the elect ladies, forerunners of our modern “Women of the Church” organizations, founders of Montreat and other conference grounds, and financiers who generated much of the support for world evangelization.

After language study, Dr. Ingold arrived in Chonju in 1897 “and began immediately to repair a native house which could be used as a medical dispensary for women. The work of this dispensary was to be of tremendous influence in breaking down suspicion and prejudice. During the dispensary’s first five months, Dr. Ingold treated four hundred patients. The first building to be constructed as a dispensary was erected for her on a new site in 1902… land! consisted of a dispensary proper (32 by 28 feet) and a contagious ward <32 by 8 feet. But during the next several years the clinic was open only intermittently, since Dr. Ingold was the only doctor on the field and there were many interruptions. Often, she was called to the other stations to give aid. Despite the interruptions, during 1903 she treated more than fifteen hundred cases. And Dr. Ingold had evangelistic skills as well. She made the first translation of the Child’s Catechism into Korean. The catechism was published by the Tract Society and used throughout Korea for many years. In 1905 Dr. Ingold was married to the Rev. L. B. Tate, and after that time did not engage in medical practice except on a temporary or emergency basis.”²

Pictures of the little huts where Dr. Ingold practiced reveal the ingenuity and fortitude required to work among filth and bugs and noises and smells with patients suffering from strange maladies which had often been mis-treated by local mal-practitioners. One contemporary missionary spoke of her using “Smith Cash Store boxes for shelves and Eagle condensed milk boxes for drawers.” ³ “‘A medical missionary is’ indeed ‘a missionary and a half.’ When suffering has been relieved, it is easy to listen to the words of the one who has brought healing. One poor woman, to whom Dr. Ingold had brought relief from intense pain, said to her, ‘Can you not give my husband some medicine to make him stop drinking, He drinks a great deal and beats me and the children so much that it is hard to live.’ ‘Yes,’ said Dr. Ingold, ‘I have come to Korea to bring your husband that medicine, the Gospel. If he will only eat its teachings he will never again beat you or the children.’ So the poor woman went home comforted, to try to persuade her husband to go to the services in the little church and learn of the Great Physician. The little dispensary, with its tender, consecrated doctor, was soon ‘A light set on a hill,’ and many who sat in darkness saw its gleam from afar and were led to the Savior.’”⁴

And from that tiny beginning evolved a medical institution which ever since has brought healing of body and soul to countless Koreans under the care of great missionary doctors such as Dr. Lloyd Boggs, well known here in Savannah, and today stands as the great Presbyterian Medical Center with 500 beds, an immense daily outpatient clinic, a staff of Christian doctors trained in all branches of modern medicine and six full-time evangelists ministering to spiritual needs. Dr. Mattie Ingold too, deserves a place in the missionary hall of fame.

Margaret Pritchard

Margaret Pritchard was born the first day of this century and went to her heavenly home Feb. 14, 1988. She came to Korea in 1929 and my first memories of her come from when I was a little boy and my mother was desperately ill… in fact nearly died. Margaret was a newly arrived trained nurse, assigned to a mission hospital fifty miles away, and in this emergency came to live in our home and care for mother.

She too was devoted to her Lord and dedicated to her calling. Like most missionaries, man or woman, she had to be a “jack-of-all-trade.” Bedside nursing was practiced, of course, but it was also taught to scores of Korean girls who quickly took over most routine duties. Once when Dr. Levie, the mission dentist, held “teeth extraction day” at the women’s Bible conference, “Miss Pritchard told of how she assisted… in pulling 189 teeth in about two and a half hours! The women, wrote Miss Pritchard, ‘walked in as if they were going to a picnic.’”⁵ One night in 1933 the Kwangju hospital burned to the ground. The doctors and “Miss Pritchard and other members of the staff worked through the night to evacuate the patients and save as much equipment as possible. All the drugs, most of the operating equipment, half the beds and linens, the X-ray and dental equipment were lost. And yet by mid-morning the next day, signs and posters had been put up in the street announcing that the hospital was open and receiving patients! That same evening Dr. Brand performed an emergency operation, using instruments salvaged from the ashes and a homemade lamp.”⁶ You may be sure that much of that feat was due to the heroic leadership of “General” Margaret Pritchard!

We personally witnessed the major part of her career. When we reached Chonju, in 1948 she and Dr. Paul Crane had already begun the Presbyterian Medical Center, previously mentioned. While the shell of our home which had housed refugees was being rehabilitated, we boarded with Margaret and experienced her skillful home management. Rounding up nurses she had trained in pre-war years she supervised the nursing program of the hospital, managed the procuring, storing, and usage of drugs, linens, and equipment of all kinds… as well as planned, erected, organized, and opened a new Nurses’ School modeled after the best in the U.S all within two years.

The Korean War in 1950 necessitated her evacuating to Pusan along with two pregnant missionary mothers, and then returning to her post until the North Korean army took the city. Upon their retreat two months later, she returned to Chonju to begin all over again… cleaning up, repairing buildings, scrounging supplies, managing nurses, and, of course, reopening the nurses school. I saw that school with the chapel so full of beds for refugees you could not walk between them. With supplies from the UN she managed a milk-feeding program among the thousands in refugee camps. But her great goal was the training of nurses who were also deeply committed Christians, giving their witness to the Master. Today the Margaret Pritchard College of Nursing in Korea stands as her monument in brick and mortar but more important are living monuments by the score who serve in many lands around the world. During her final years in Richmond, Va. she was an active member of a local Korean Church. Loving former students now living in America came from far and near to minister during her final months of illness, and participate in her final memorial service. Surely her Lord greeted her with the words, “Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me.”

Annis Barron Hopper

My mother represents more than a third of all missionaries who have “kept the home fires burning.” She was under appointment to go as a missionary to teach in Egypt when she met my Father and instead went to Korea with him in 1919. My father was a Bible scholar and teacher, and a rural evangelist responsible for planting and nurturing new churches over a large area. He was often away for weeks at a time in those churches, or teaching in Bible conferences and the Presbyterian Seminary. But mother, like hundreds of missionary wives around the world, “manned” the base camp without which he would have been helpless. Like a supply sergeant she would organize equipment for his country church trips… cot, folding table and chair (furniture was unknown in Korean homes), boxes of food and cooking utensils, medicines, clothing, bedding… everything.

Meanwhile she managed all the home affairs, ordering groceries, clothing, etc. from afar, planting a huge garden (too big, some of us small “weeders” often complained), saw to it there was fuel for the cold winters, kept the house in repair, and entertained guests both Korean and foreign. Best of all she raised three children and was their only teacher until they left home for high school 18 hours away by train. She was a thorough and strict teacher but a good one… and along with the three “Rs” we were taught the Bible from beginning to end, memorizing many chapters, and also the Westminster Shorter catechism… by far the best theological training I ever received. Never a week went by during all the years thereafter but what she faithfully wrote us, and who could say how often her prayers were raised in our behalf!

We could talk about mother indefinitely, but you in the home church need to remember the missionary mothers… they came from among you and are like you. But they left families and homes… for 7 year tours in the case of my mother… they endured primitive conditions… they saw their children leave at an early age for distant schools… yet without them their husbands could never have laid the sturdy foundations for great national churches abroad… and Korea became one of the greatest of them all.

Willie Bernice Greene

Willie Bernice Greene was one of scores of unmarried ladies who performed day-byday drudgery, unsung and seldom rewarded (at least in any tangible fashion). The male missionary evangelists went out into the towns and villages, far and near, and started churches… but like the Apostle Paul they had to keep moving to other places of opportunity. They returned periodically on short visits to preach, receive members, hold the sacraments, administer the affairs of the church. But these lady missionaries would go to such places and stay a week, sometimes several weeks. In those days the first Christians were often largely women, with whom custom forbad the male missionaries to work. So missionary ladies would visit in their homes, gather them into the churches, teaching them first of all to read, then to read and study the Bible. This was hard work. It took physical stamina, courage, and persistence. They “endured hardship” like good soldiers of the cross. Without their follow-up who knows how much of the labors of the men would have vanished?

Miss Green was one of these warriors. She was the perfect librarian-type. Everything with her had to be in the right place, straight, and neat. Woe be the carpenter who built something crooked! With her exacting standards of perfection after the Korean War she administered what was then the Ada Hamilton Bible School for training women… in those days mostly widows and cast-off wives… for service as Bible teachers and visitors in churches, and that institution is now the Hanil Seminary with some 350 students. But she also itinerated, doing her share in the country churches.

I recall taking her to such a place, Yong-san village, 4 hours by jeep-ride. Across a creek from the little mud, stick and straw church, was the tile-roofed home of the wealthiest man in the village. He presided over a large clan residing in rooms around his courtyard. He was not a Christian, but had consented for Miss Greene to have a room there during her visit. The evangelist of the church was an elderly man who had been taken by the Japanese along with other Koreans as a workman to one of the Pacific islands during World War II. Because the GIs who later occupied that island called him “Pop,” he assumed that was the proper English term for an old man and so he called Miss Green’s host “Pop.” Her meetings were all strictly for women and children, but each night “Pop” would come and sit quietly in the corner, watching and listening. On the final night at the conclusion of the service, he rose with all the dignity of an Oriental patriarch, than which there is no greater dignity, and said: “I have something to say. Each night I have come and have listened carefully to all that this American lady and her Korean helper have said. I have been to Chonju where she lives. I saw her house. It is a fine large brick Western home and I know contains many conveniences and nice things. And I also know that in America she left a much finer home and way of living. I have been thinking this over. I have decided that if this lady can leave her comfortable home in Chonju, and even better home in America, and come around the world to our poor land and stay in our miserable homes to tell us about this Jesus and what He has done for us, then I too should find out about this Jesus and believe in Him!” He did too… and became a member of that little church and for years I used to drop by to see him. It took a host of missionaries like Miss Bill Green to create the church of Korea and populate heaven with saints like “Pop.”

Conclusion

These are merely a few of the “daughters of Priscilla” but praise the Lord for all of them. Pray for those who follow in their train! Thank God for every one of them, and may their tribe increase to the glory of God and the establishment of His kingdom in the hearts of men and women and boys and girls around the globe.

God gave us memories so that we may have roses in December.

Early Childhood

On August 4, 1903 a baby girl was born to Annie Hauhart Engler and Martin Engler of Manchester, Missouri. Dr. Meisch was the attending doctor at our home. He continued to be our family physician. I was the first grandchild on the Hauhart side of the family. Aunt Mary, Aunt Julia, and Uncle Peter Hauhart lived on the neighboring farm. At times Aunt Minne and Uncle Edward were also at home with the Hauhart sisters and brothers. I must have been very spoiled by all this attention and gifts.

When I was almost four years old my one and only sister was added to the family. She was named Esther Evelyn. She was more daring than I, so I took care that she would not climb on dangerous places. We had many places to play on the farm. Our pets were dogs and cats. We also had indoor games.

I remember some special gifts given by the Hauhart relatives. There was a white parasol with embroidery used as insertions. The pretty doll dishes made possible tea parties with our dolls or grownups. One tea set was hand painted. We were careful so that when we grew up, there were some left to divide. Esther had some to give to her children.

We also learned to work, helping with the gardening, marketing, and housework. We had relatives in St. Louis who came to visit us. Cousins Elmer, Norval and Flora Catherine were children of Uncle Frank and Aunt Helen (Reitz). In Uncle Herman’s and Aunt Cecilia’s (Shields, nicknamed “Aunt Pink”) home were two more cousins, Helen and Shields. Their visits were always lively times for us. As the years passed we often had family gatherings at the Hauhart home. The cousins bought fireworks for the July 4 celebrations. Helen’s Aunt, Lillie Shields, gave her fancy pieces of silk, satin, and fur. We learned to sew for our dolls making a wardrobe, including hats. Croquet became our favorite outdoor game.

Gifts from our parents were usually practical things, as clothing. But on Christmas we were surprised, as we each received a lavalier necklace. That was a very special gift! Each season we were given a special dress for Sunday. I remember one especially when I was about 12. It was a soft serge, light brown but trimmed with red velvet. Our best dresses were made by Mrs. Umbach of Manchester.

There was never a question about going to church in Ballwin each Sunday. Our transportation was by a horse-drawn buggy while we were small enough to sit on our parents laps. Later a surrey, with front and back seats and drawn by two horses, gave us a more comfortable ride to Ballwin. I listened to many German sermons and hymns which gave me an understanding of the German language. Mother also had a beginner’s book of German from which she taught us. During World War I, the church services were conducted in English, and that practice continued after that. A revival meeting was held every year. When I was nine, my father suggested that it was time for me to make a public decision for Christ. So that is what I did at the meeting.

During the next three winters I was a member of a class taught by the pastor on Saturday. During that time, we studied Old Testament history, followed by the New Testament, and the final year, catechism. In 1915, at the age of 12, I joined the church with other class members.

Education: Grade and High School

My elementary education was in Manchester at a two room school. The daughter of our family doctor was my first teacher. I liked Delia Meisch very much. Since I owned a red coat, I was chosen to be Little Red Riding hood in the play. Later I had Miss Ratherd, whose home was in Kirkwood. “The Big Room,” as it was called, had grades five, six, seven, and eight, and was taught by Lee Schumacher who lived near the school. I had several childhood diseases during my first years which caused me to miss a lot of school days. Measles, followed by pneumonia one winter, and whooping cough another year. But I passed each year.

Since there was no high school in our district, tuition was paid for us in the Kirkwood District. I went there from 1918 to 1922. I still have my class ring. I was shy and it was hard to make friends, for the majority of the class had been together in the Kirkwood grade schools. For a year my transportation was by public bus which I met a half mile from home. After school each day, I had a long wait until the evening bus went back to the country. In winter my walk was in the dark both morning and evening. Along this part of the road, there was a church, a cemetery, and a parsonage, with woods on the other side of the road. For the last three years a neighbor boy drove to high school and took several of us as passengers. That ended the waiting after school, but we did not participate in any evening activities. This was a disadvantage to us, both educationally and socially.

College Days at Central Wesleyan

From 1923 to 1927, I attended Central Wesleyan College in Warrenton, Missouri, where Aunt Catherine, Uncle Will, and Uncle Herman Hauhart had gone years before. These years were happier than high school. I was on the campus where I could attend everything and be a part of the school activities. I made close friends in the dorm and in classes. There were football games, parties, recitals, and church services. Several of us taught Sunday School classes at a small church; I joined a literary society and YWCA. The small college gave me opportunities to gain confidence and develop leadership abilities. The Christian professors were dedicated to teaching and took a personal interest in us. I have forgotten the exact tuition costs, but they were low. Weekly room and board was only six dollars.

Visitors at College

Visitors from my home community were highlights, because this was my first break from home. Mother was sent as a delegate Warrenton my first fall. I spent as much time with her during those days as her meetings and my classes permitted. Several times groups of home church friends brought a picnic lunch. How we talked as I introduced them to our campus and my new friends. My parents and sister made at least one trip a year, once to show me their new Buick.

Musical Education

Before 1915 my music lessons started with Aunt Minnie Hauhart. I took lessons on her organ. That was my practice instrument also. My parents bought a piano soon after. She was married in 1915.¹ The next teacher was Eloise Koeneke who came to Ballwin from St. Louis once a week. The third instructor was Miss Mcllvaney who came to our home where she had her noon meal, gave me a lesson, and then I took her to the Kuehne home. She returned to St. Louis by bus after lessons were completed.

I did not take practice time very seriously. However, by the age of 13, I was playing for grade school singing and for some evening services at church. I am grateful to my parents for providing me with lessons. During my four years in college piano lessons continued under Oliver Kleinschmidt. Then I really practiced faithfully for at least ten hours a week. I also had a year of music theory. Esther was taking voice lessons, and I accompanied her. We had recitals several times a year. I was slow at memory work; recital pieces had to be memorized.

From college days until now, there has always been a reason for me to use my knowledge of piano. In high school work, I helped contestants prepare by doing the accompanying. In grade school teaching, we had daily singing classes. I learned much from my supervisor, Agnes Gundlach. We took fifth and sixth graders to the children’s symphony concert by train from Kirkwood to St. Louis. Agnes and her husband also went to the night symphonies and invited me to go with them. Symphonies added much to my musical education.

In 1938 I began teaching in Kirkwood and lived with my parents. Agnes directed and sang in the choir. I became organist, first on a pump organ, and then on the Hammond Electric Organ. I kept the organ playing job at church until 1967 when I married and moved to Tennessee. By then organ playing was my preference. I sold my piano in Missouri and bought a Wurlitzer organ for our home in Morristown. Hershey and I sang hymns every evening with our devotional time so I kept up my music.

As I write this, I have been at Asbury for 14 years. Soon after I came, I started to practice on a lovely Allen organ in the chapel. After some months, I was ready to take my turn at playing for vesper services. For many years there have been two or more women able and willing to work at vesper music. Usually the piano and organ are used together. In summary, music has been a big interest in my life. I cannot do as well now as I did some years ago, but I am willing to continue as long as I am needed, and can read the music. In recent years Cornelia Clay and Johanna Howard have been my music pals.

Teaching Positions

First Position

Pacific, Missouri in Franklin County was where I started to teach. The subjects were ancient and modem history, economics, and Spanish. I had only two years of Spanish in college, and had not learned to speak the language. Since the superintendent wanted to add a new subject to the curriculum, and requirements for teaching were low, Mr. Leezy wanted me to do it. I agreed and hope the pupils learned something. Daily preparation required much time, and I coached girls basketball on an outdoor court! This superintendent was eager for all teachers to be in athletics and earn an athletic letter. Since I was not skilled in sports, another way was to hike 100 miles. This is what I accomplished in ten mile hikes over several months time.

In these days (1927-1931) there were strict rules for teachers—what we did in our free time and where we boarded. Each weekend I went home by bus and returned by train. Weekends at home helped me to pass the requirements of my private life. Milton Bollman was teaching eighth grade and preaching in the Pacific Methodist Church. We did not spend any free time talking to each other—at least, not in Pacific. Milton was dating my sister and was often at my parents’ home. In Pacific, our job was teaching, not giving opportunities for gossip.

At the end of the four years I resigned. I felt that there was little chance of advancing in my profession in Pacific. I did not get a job for the following year, so I went to Washington University in St. Louis for a master’s degree in history. I lived with Mrs. Stauffer and her daughter, Katherine, good customers of my father, going home each weekend. Uncle Peter often brought me back to the city on Sunday evening.

Second Position

At Washington University I got to know an undergraduate, Annie Willard, from O’Fallon, Illinois. When I completed my work for the advanced degree, she knew of a vacancy in the O’Fallon High School. She put in a good word for me and I started my second job in the fall of 1932. I boarded with Mrs. Freivogel, her daughter and a grade school granddaughter. They were good to me. I could even come home for lunch. Since O’Fallon was about 20 miles from St. Louis into Illinois, I went home only every two weeks. I had pleasant experiences in O’Fallon and stayed for six years.

In the spring of 1938 my parents sold five acres with the old home and farm buildings to Mr. & Mrs. Carl Knickhahn and built a modern home for themselves. I decided to try for a teaching position in Kirkwood and live at home with my parents. That pleased them as much as much as it did me.

Agnes Gundlach helped me to get this position. Then I changed from high school to grade six at Key son School, one of the several Kirkwood grade schools. I liked the principal, Mrs. Denny, and soon decided that I liked grade school work. I taught in the Kirkwood District from 1938 to 1963.

In 1938 the kindergarten, fifth and sixth grades were added to the school. The teachers were Agnes Bear, Maria Hall, Emily Worth, and Ora D. Hayes, and Mrs. Denny taught second.

The hot lunch program started in 1938. We had playground duty twice a day with our classes. After some years we were relieved of that duty when a physical education teacher was added. That was a great help to us since we could be working on our preparations or grading papers. When Mrs. Denny retired in 1957 and Mr. Smith became principal, I transferred to grade 6 at the Des Peres School, also in the Kirkwood district. It cut down on the distance I had to drive and the school was smaller. I retired in 1963 at the age of 60.

I rode to Kirkwood with Agnes Gundlach until 1945, when my father died (January 30).

From then on, I owned a car until April of 1990. Mother and I had a chance to sell about 50 acres of the farm. We kept several acres surrounding our home. Over a period of several years, homes were built all over what had been the Engler farm for more than 50 years. Most farm land in that part of the country became built up into a suburban area.

Mother lived for ten more years until January 6, 1955. I continued to teach. After her death,

I had a companion to help in my home. Ann Noltkamper kept the house going. Both Aunt Julia and Aunt Mary had died, so Uncle Peter ate three meals a day at my home. Ann’s presence was very important to me for this was before my retirement.

Retirement

When my paper-grading days were over, I found much pleasure in doing more church and community work. I gave music lessons to five beginners. Ann Noltkamper was no longer living with me. A teacher friend, Frances Sanders, needed a boarding place. She accepted my offer of room and board, and it meant much to me. She was a member of Salem Methodist Church, and we belonged to several of the same organizations. We had many mutual interests, even though she was much younger than I was. We attended many evening meetings together which made it very nice for both of us.

In 1966 and 1967 she was courted by James Sanderson, a young minister. In preparation for their wedding, Frances asked me to accompany her on her business and shopping trips. Her mother did not live near enough to help her. It was very interesting and proved to be of great value to me. She and James were married in her home town—Cape Girardeau, Missouri, April 1, 1967, exactly one year after their first date.

It made me wonder about the next boarder I would find to take Frances’ place in my life. But the Lord opened up an entirely new way of life for me. Hershey Longenecker, a widower of one year, sent me a proposal of marriage by mail. My first reaction was great shock. I remember that I said aloud, “Preposterous!” For a month I told no one, not even my sister.

Of course, a correspondence began between Hershey and me, and we spoke on the telephone also. By praying about this tremendous decision and through prayers on the Morristown end, my mind was gradually changed. I decided to ask my pastor for advice. He and his wife both encouraged me. I thought I was used to being independent and could not adjust to a partner.

I invited Hershey to come to Missouri for a visit to discuss the question. As an outcome, we were engaged during that visit. The wedding date was set on October 21, 1967. I owned the home which my parents had built in 1938. I spent some busy days clearing out the accumulation of 30 years. The house was not sold until some time after I was living in Morristown. The buyer had a 15-year mortgage which he paid off in ten years, much to my satisfaction.

In personal preparations for wedding details, the lessons which I had learned while helping Frances Sanders came in very handy. Little did I know when helping her that I would be married the same year. From this point of my life, most of you became acquainted and visited us frequently in Morristown. I was well received by all of the Longeneckers and their friends. Hershey and I had ten years and ten months of happiness. He went to be with the Lord on August 19, 1978. One of his favorite Scripture verses was Proverbs 3:5-7:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy paths.

As I recall the decisions I made many times in my life, the guidance of the Lord is very evident. Each change brought many blessings and benefits. Those decisions came when I changed schools, accepted Hershey’s proposal and when I came to Asbury Acres.

In accepting Hershey’s proposal, new avenues of happiness were opened for me. Besides our very good years together, I “inherited” the whole Longenecker family of loving relatives. They have stood by me and given love freely. The decision to come to Asbury I have never regretted. I have enjoyed fine friends, and the things I could do with others.

When Milton’s illness came, they could no longer travel. Since Milton’s death in January of 1991, Esther has come to be with me in Maryville twice a year. With weekly telephone calls added to her visits, we have maintained a loving, close relationship. Esther came to my 90th birthday celebration in August of 1993 with many Longenecker relatives.

Vacation Times

I was privileged to see part of southern Missouri because I was invited to take trips with the Herman Hauharts. One trip included Onandaga Cave. I remember its dampness and vast caverns, and we wore galoshes to keep our shoes dry. In the spring of 1928 I went with a group of teachers from Pacific to my one and only trip to Washington, DC. The locomotive burned coal, which left us dirty, and the windows were open (no air conditioning). Knowing something about Washington helped me in my teaching.

In 1954, my cousin Helen Hauhart and I visited at the Teacher’s Ranch in Southern Missouri. This continues to be a fine vacation and conference center for Missouri teachers. As we started back over the hills, the brakes gave out. It was a relief to find a garage to have a repair job when we got back to the main road.

Helen and I had many trips together. Both of us were teachers so we were glad to earn a few hours of credit in summer, as well as visit a new area of the United States. That desire took us to Burlington University of Vermont one year. There were three weekend trips during summer school-east into the white mountains in New Hampshire, north to Montreal, and west to the Lake Champlain area.

Aunt Hertha Hauhart was in Europe during the summer of 1939. Uncle Will taught summer school in Dallas and was to meet her in New York. He came by way of St. Louis County and took Aunt Julia, my mother, and me with him to New York, and to the World’s Fair. He appreciated having me to help him drive. It was our pleasure to take the trip. Aunt Mary had gone earlier with the Herman Hauharts.

In 1940 Helen and I wanted to take a trip to Colorado and to attend summer school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her parents took us, and we enjoyed seeing many interesting things en route. The highlight was the drive up to Pike’s Peak. Uncle Herman hired a driver who was skilled, and my uncle could take in the view. It was a real experience. Being somewhat affected by the altitude, we did not tarry long on the peak. After our four weeks at Boulder, Helen and I returned to Missouri by train. In 1947 Mother and I and the Bollman family went west again. We enjoyed a stay of a week in a cabin in Colorado and then moved on to Yellowstone National Park, the Black Hills of South Dakota, the Badlands, and Mt. Rushmore. I think we were gone for three weeks. That was Mother’s only trip west.

In 1953 I had my first plane flight, to Mexico City. A niece of Ora D Hayes conducted the trip. Again I was improving my knowledge for teaching by traveling. In 1957 Esther Milton, Alberta Schnackenburg, and I went to Europe for three weeks, on the Grand Tour, sponsored by the National Teacher’s Association. The tour group included 26 teachers from various parts of the United States. We flew to Scotland where we stayed at Glasgow for several days. Then by bus we viewed the countryside to London. London was our headquarters until we had visited all the sites of historic interest.

After crossing the English Channel, we were in Holland, Belgium, and Germany, by boat on the Rhine. Austria, Switzerland, Italy and France were included before we headed back to London. Crossing the channel at night was an experience which we remember because many were seasick. I found the trip very worthwhile. It was a great help in my educational experience for now I had slides to illustrate the wonders of Europe from which most Americans originated.

Trips to Colorado came up often. Carol was working during her break from college at the YMCA camp, so Esther and Milton invited me to visit the camp with them. Carol rode a horse as her means of getting around in a large area to spread news of camp life among the vacationers. We saw Carol frequently, and took a 2 1/2 mile hike, and a side trip to Colorado Springs. In 1980 the Bollman clan gathered in Colorado again for Esther & Milton’s 50th wedding anniversary. I traveled from Maryville to Chicago and with the Bollmans by car to Colorado. We were all housed in one building, and we had a great celebration.

The best of the various trips which I took with Agnes Gundlach was from Toronto, Ontario to Vancouver by train. Then we took the inland waterways to lower Alaska. The ship stopped at many seacoast towns where we went ashore to learn about that area.

After Hershey and I were married we went to Montreat frequently, usually at mission meeting time. I learned to know many of the missionaries with whom the Longeneckers were associated in their work in the Belgian Congo. It was Hershey’s special pleasure to introduce me. We made a visit to the St. Louis area in 1968 and 1969. It was a great pleasure for all concerned to renew friendships, and have Hershey become better acquainted with those friends who corresponded with me.

Agnes Gundlach made two trips to Morristown to keep close contact for we had traveled together during our teaching days. We were also closely connected to the work of Salem Church, Ballwin, Missouri, for years before my marriage.

After Hershey’s death in 1978, my plans to move to Asbury Acres developed. In 1979 my second retirement began. For six consecutive years Esther and Milton Bollman treated me to a month’s vacation in Florida with them. The gulf side, Clearwater Beach, was the favorite location. We did a lot of beach walking, resting, eating out, shopping, and entertaining. They had school and church friends from Chicago there, and we visited with them often.

This abbreviated description of my vacations has been added to my brief life story because “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” cannot be said of my life. Travel added much, or more, than a formal education. It renewed my energy each summer for another year of teaching. Milton once made this statement: “Vacation from regular work is as important as an insurance policy.”

May God bless you richly. Keep on learning all your life. There are many challenging problems to be solved. May you help in their solution.

Edward O. Guerrant: Apostle to the Southern Highlanders. McAllister, J G, and Grace O. G. Guerrant. Richmond: Richmond Press, 1950.

History of Ebenezer Presbyterian Church: Including a History of Ebenezer Academy and the Town of Ebenezer. Mendenhall, Samuel B. Rock Hill, S.C: Ebenezer Presbyterian Church, 1985.

The History of Presbyterianism in North Carolina. Rumple, Jethro. Richmond: Library of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1966.

Thanks.

My great grandfathers knew each other as students at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. They were both ordained by Kentucky presbyteries of the Southern Presbyterian church before spending their careers as overseas missionaries of their denomination.

One of my historical interests is trying to understand the world these men came from. To that end, I’ve been reading Kentucky Presbyterians (1983) by Louis Weeks.

His introduction is helpful in setting the stage:

The complex relationships and diversity of interests among Kentucky Presbyterians seemingly would preclude any schema that at once remained true to the facts and provided insight into the nature of the denominations.

If Presbyterians eschewed revivals, for example, they also employed revivals throughout most of their history.

If they embodied drives for temperance and Sabbatarianism, they also included distillers and employers of Sunday laborers among their number; many Presbyterians also worked on Sunday.

If hosts of Kentucky Shakers and Christians (Disciples of Christ) came from the Presbyterians, many others joined Reformed communions from Baptist or Catholic backgrounds.

Thus the Presbyterians in Kentucky would apparently defy classification.

The Kentucky Synod had been building a fund to finance a new seminary within its bounds. Mr. Samuel Laird, a ruling elder of Mount Horeb Presbyterian Church in Fayette County, Kentucky, made a $10,000 gift to this fund in 1851.¹

Laird was concerned that the funds only be used for the support of orthodox theological education. The Records of the Synod of Kentucky (1851-1559) contain Laird’s conditions:

I, Samuel Laird, of the County of Fayette, and Commonwealth of Kentucky, a member and Ruling Elder of the Presbyterian Church, and as such, connected with the Presbytery of West Lexington, the Synod of Kentucky, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in the United States of America—all of the Old School Presbyterians, as now commonly called, since the schism of 1838—make the following dedication, by way of free gift, of the sum of ten thousand dollars, to the Trustees of the Theological Fund of the Synod of Kentucky, for the uses and to the objects herein specified—and upon the trusts, herein set forth, and on the condition herein stated—and for no other use or object, and upon no other trust or condition (To wit) I give the said sum of money to be a part of a perpetual Fund, of which the interest alone, and not the principal, shall be used forever, for the purposes herein set forth—the said sum of money to be under the exclusive control and management of the said Trustees, themselves, under the control of said Synod of Kentucky.

The sole object, 1. which the annual interest of said money shall be appropriated, shall be the support of a Professor or Teacher, in whatever place, connected with whatever Theological Seminary, and the said Professor or Teacher to impart instruction, in whatever department of Theological learning, the said Synod of Kentucky, shall, from time to time, designate, appoint and ordain, to the end, that candidates, for the holy ministry may enjoy sound orthodox, and scriptural instruction, in the sense of the standards of doctrine, faith and order, heretofore, and at present held forth by the said Synod.

My object is to invest the Synod of Kentucky with compete and entire control of the money, hereby given—for the object, designated, and in the manner, prescribed, so long, as said Synod shall be and remain what it is at the present time, a sound and orthodox Presbyterian Synod, in the sense of the standards, already mentioned.

But the gift and dedication of the said Ten Thousand dollars, in manner aforesaid, is upon the conditions, following (To wit)

First, that, if there should, at any time, occur a schism, in the body of said Synod of Kentucky all the use, trust and benefit, and control of said money shall belong to the rest with the orthodox and sound portion of said Synod, whatever part of it, that may be

Secondly, that, if the Synod shall depart from the faith, as a body, and as a Synod cease to be sound and orthodox, or if it should become so indifferent to the truth, as either to appoint a corrupt or an unsound Professor or Teacher, or to appoint a Professor or Teacher, of any sort in said Seminary, that is itself corrupt or unsound—in either of these contingencies, stated, under this second general head—the gift or dedication herein made, shall, from the occurrence of either of these vents, be absolutely forfeited, and all control of said Synod, and all right, title, and interest, both of said Synod and said Trustees, shall absolutely cease and determine, in, to, over or concerning said Ten Thousand dollars, and every part thereof.

But as it is my desire and purpose to dedicate the sum of Ten Thousand dollars, absolutely, to the great object, herein specified, I hereby provide, that, if any forfeiture, such as is above set forth, should, at any time, occur then and in that case, I dedicate and give the said sum of money so the first, sound, orthodox Presbyterian Theological Seminary, that will sue for and recover the same.

It is well known, to those so whom this gift is now made, in the first instance, that I aim entirely opposed to the practice, which prevails to a certain extent, of reading sermons, in the pulpit, instead of preaching the Gospel: and I would, but for the practical difficult of doing it, make it an express condition of thus gift, that its use should be directed, as far as possible, consistently, with the great object object I have in view, against the practice, I therefore content myself, with the expression of my strong opposition to the practice—and the expression of the hope, that this money may never be used to promote it—. This gift is, in full discharge of all promises, subscriptions, or undertakings by me, whether verbal or written, to contribute any thing, in any way, to the said Trustees, herein first named, or to aid the said Synod of Kentucky, in the object, herein contemplated, or any similar object.²

One day in mid-afternoon I was teaching a Bible class in the grass-roofed chapel. The roof was rather low at the edges, so most of our light was reflected from the ground. It grew darker and darker, until we could not see to read. I told the students we had better get home before the storm broke. We stepped outside, but to our great surprise there was no storm. But it continued to grow darker and darker. There was a total eclipse of the sun.

Mr. Stilz got a photograph showing a perfect corona. Some days later I started on my homeward journey, but I was to go out of my way to visit Bibanga station. I arrived there in four or five days. A few days out from Lusambo a village chief asked me in all seriousness whether it was true, as he had heard, that a white man reached up his hand, and covered the sun.

Christianity vs. Modern Liberalism

By Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Princeton Theological Seminary

Will read a few verses from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, fifteenth chapter, beginning with the first verse:—

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

In the time allotted me this afternoon I will not try to settle all the religious issue the day, but try to be bold enough to present that issue as briefly and clearly can, that you may be aided in settling it for yourself.

But presenting the issue sharply and clearly is by no means a popular business at present. There are many people at present time who, as Dr. Francis L. Patton on has aptly put it, prefer to fight intellectual battles in what may be called a condition of “low visibility”.

Presenting the issue sharply is regarded by them as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contributions to mission boards? May it not prevent church consolidation and cause a poor showing in church statistics?

But for my part I am glad to tell you my sympathies are with those men, whether conservatives or radicals, who have a passion for light. The type of religion which delights in the pious sound traditional phrases regardless of their meaning and shrinks from controversial matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life.

Liberalism a Misnomer

When you get beneath the traditional phraseology used everywhere today to the real underlying issue, you discover that that great redemptive religion called Christianity is being attacked within the church by a totally different type of religious thought and life, which is only the more opposed to Christianity because it is making use of traditional Christian phraseology. That modern non-redemptive religion which is attacking Christianity at its root is called by various names. It is called Modernism. It is called Liberalism.

All such names are unsatisfactory; the latter in particular is question-begging, because the movement is regarded as liberal only by its friends. To those opposed to it it seems to involve a narrow attention to certain facts, and a closing of the eyes to others that are equally vital.

But by whatever name the movement may be called, the root of the movement is found in Naturalism, and by that I mean the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God, as sharply distinguished from his works in nature, at the beginnings of Christianity.

When I use the term “Naturalism” it is in a different way from that in which it is used by the philosophers, but in that non-philosophic sense it expresses fairly well what is really at the root of that which is called by a degradation of the original noble term, “liberal religion.”

The Importance of Doctrine

What then are the teachings of modern Naturalism as over against the teachings of Christianity? At the beginning of the discussion we are met with an objection which goes to the very roots of the matter. People will tell us that teachings are unimportant. They will tell us that even if the teachings of modern naturalistic Liberalism are entirely different from the teachings of Christianity, yet the two may turn out to be fundamentally the same, because teachings and doctrines are unimportant. All creeds they tell us are equally good for they all spring from Christian experience.

Well now, my friends, whether the objection is well founded or not, we ought to observe exactly what the objection means. I will tell you what it means, it means that we are falling back into a fundamental skepticism, because if all creeds are equally true, then since the creeds are contradictory one to another, it follows with inexorable logic that all are equally false, or at least equally uncertain. To say that all creeds are equally true is the same as to say that all creeds are equally false or equally uncertain; and when you say that creeds make little difference provided there be a unitary Christian experience, you are falling back into agnosticism which fifty or seventy-five years ago was regarded as the deadliest enemy of the Christian church. That enemy has not been made a friend, but has been made only more dangerous, by being received within our walls.

Christianity they will tell us is a life and not a doctrine. Now that seems to be a devout and pious utterance, but it is radically false all the same, and to see that it is false you do not need even to be a Christian, you need have just common sense and common honesty. For when you say that Christianity is this or that, you are making an assertion in the sphere of history. You are not saying what you think ought to be true, but what you think actually is a fact. When people say that Christianity is this or that—some have ventured the absurd assertion that Christianity is democracy —when you say Christianity is this or that, you are making an assertion in the sphere of history. It is just like saying that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. It is possible that the Roman Empire under Nero might have been a great deal better if it had been a free democracy, but the question is whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or not. So when you say that Christianity is a life, not a doctrine, you are making an assertion in the sphere of history, because Christianity is an historical phenomenon exactly like the Roman Empire, like the kingdom of Prussia or the United States of America.

What Does the Charter Say?

Now before you can determine whether Christianity is this or that, you have to go back to the beginning of the Christian movement. At the beginning of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, commonly called the charter, and in this paper are set forth the objects of the corporation. It is conceivable that other objects may be more desirable than those set forth in the incorporation paper, but if the directors use the name and resources of that particular corporation to pursue these other objects, they are going ultra vires of the corporation. It is the same fundamentally with Christianity. It is conceivable that after further investigation we may have fresh views about it. It is conceivable that the founders of the Christian movement were wrong, and that we in the twentieth century can better their program. It is conceivable that they had no right to legislate for all subsequent generations. That is a matter for us to determine in the light of the evidence, but at any rate the founders of the Christian movement did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear this name of Christian.

Therefore, if you would honestly determine what can bear the name Christian, you have to go back to the beginnings of the Christian movement. Now the beginnings of the movement constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon; there is a certain agreement as to what Christianity at its inception was, possible even between Christians and non-Christians, because we have certain sources of information which are admitted to come from the first Christian generation, like the passage we read today—sources which give us definite information about the beginnings of Christianity.

The Christian movement began a few days after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. I can see no good historical justification for calling anything that existed before the death of Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity. At any rate, to be cautious, I will say that if Christianity existed before that time it existed only in a preliminary stage. Evidently after the death of Jesus of Nazareth there was a strange new beginning among His disciples, and that new beginning began the movement which caused the spread of the Christian religion out into the world.

Now, what was the character of the movement at its beginning? For one thing, it was not merely a life as distinguished from a doctrine. Do not misunderstand me. It certainly was a strange new kind of life; anybody who came into contact with those early Christians recognized that they were living an entirely different sort of life from the people around them. It is perfectly clear that the first Christians were living a new type of life, a life of strange purity and strange unselfishness.

Something Happened

But how was that type of life produced? I will tell you the way modern leaders of the church would have expected it to be produced. They would have expected the first Christian missionaries to go forward and say: “We have been in contact with a wonderful person, namely, Jesus of Nazareth, and our lives have been changed by that contact. We call upon you, our hearers, to submit yourselves to the contagion through us with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.”

That is just what people are saying today. That is what modern men would have expected the first Christian missionaries to say, but as a matter of historical fact they said nothing of the kind. They produced a new type of life not by exhortation, not by the contagion of personal influence, but by the proclamation of a piece of news; they produced it by the account of something that had recently happened.

That seemed a strange thing to the people of those days—to change men’s lives not by telling them to be good, but by giving them an account of things that had happened. It seems strange today, it is what Paul called the foolishness of the message. It seemed to be an absolutely foolish way of trying to change the lives of men, but to the historian it is perfectly plain that that is the way they went at it.

Do you want me to tell you what the first Christian movement was in Jerusalem? They did not say, “Submit yourselves to the spell of Jesus Christ and be children of God the way Jesus was a Son of God,” but they said, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; he was buried; he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.” It was an account of things that had happened and an account of the meaning of the happenings, and when you get those historical facts with the meaning of the facts you have Christian doctrine. Christ died—that is history. Christ died for our sins—that is doctrine. We have that at the very basis of all Christian work; it was there in Christianity in the first century, and today Christianity, as then, is founded upon the account of something that happened.

What I mean can be summed up in the first chapter of Acts—the eighth verse—“Ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Now it is a complete misinterpretation of these words if you say that the witness is merely to what Christ has done for you in your own souls. That is not the way the words are meant. Paramount is the witness to the plain historical fact of the resurrection of Christ. If there is some skeptic here, I do not need to argue with him about the historical value of the book of Acts, or whether Jesus really spoke these words, because all historians, whether Christians or not, ought to admit that it is a good summary of what the Christian movement at its very beginning was; it was a campaign of witnessing, an account of historical facts; Christ died; He was buried; He has been raised.

The Christian Worker a Christian Witness

Well then, if the Christian worker is fundamentally a witness, it is important, despite modern impressions about it, that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a witness gets up on the witness stand it makes little difference what the cut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned; the important thing is that he should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the important thing for the Christian preacher and Christian worker today. Do not misunderstand me. It is a sad thing if you tell the truth with your lips and if your life belies your message’, because then the more true the message the greater your sin, for you are bringing despite upon the truth. On the other hand, it is a sad thing when a man uses the gifts God has given him in order to proclaim things which are false. Therefore, the first thing is that we should tell the story which is at the basis of Christianity and tell it straight, and full, and plain.

It does make a vast deal of difference what our teachings are, and it is the fundamental business of the Christian church today to set forth the teaching of Christianity truly and plainly in opposition to the teachings of the modern rivals of Christianity. And the chief modern rival of Christianity is not Mohammedanism or Buddhism, but naturalistic Liberalism, which is almost dominant in our large ecclesiastical bodies today.

What then, briefly, are the teachings of Christianity over against the teachings of Liberalism? We have just said that Christianity is an account of something that happened, not something that always was true, but something that happened about 1900 years ago, when God saved man through the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But before you can understand that gospel, that account of something that happened, you must know first something of God, and second something about man. These are the two great presuppositions of the gospel message, and it is these presuppositions, as well as the gospel message, to which modern Liberalism is diametrically opposed.

It is opposed to Christianity in its view of God, and in its attitude toward God. Now in the Christian view of God there are many elements, but one element is absolutely fundamental, and gives consistency to all the rest. It is the awful transcendence of God, the awful separateness of God; and it is that element in the Christian presentation of God upon which despite is being cast everywhere in the modern liberal church, because it regards God as fundamentally just another name for the great process of nature as it is. We find ourselves in the midst of a vast process, and to that vast process is applied the name of God. That is what people mean by the immanence of God.

Now do not misunderstand me. God according to the Christian view is immanent in the world. God is everywhere— “closer to us than breathing,” but immanent in the world not because He is identified with the world but because He is the Creator of it and upholds the things which He has made. The fundamental thing in the Christian notion of God is the sharp distinction between all created things and the Creator who is the explanation of all mysteries.

It is strange that men can call that a new vision of God which obscures the distinction between God and man, and involves God even in the sin of the world! How men can call such a view of God a new revelation is strange, because pantheism as it is called, is just as old as the hills, and has always been with us to blight the religious life of man. Modern Liberalism even when not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing since it seeks to obliterate the sharp distinction between God and man, and involves God in the sin of mankind. Very different is the holy and living God of the Bible and of Christian faith!

Liberalism Denies Sin!

In the second place, modern Liberalism differs from Christianity in its view of man. It differs because it obliterates the distinction between man and God in the way I have said, but it differs in a more fundamental manner still. At the very basis of modern Liberalism in the church is a loss of the consciousness of sin. You can examine the religious literature of the present day, the Sunday-school lesson helps and the sermons, and you will find that the characteristic thought through the whole of them is a profound satisfaction with human goodness. The modern preacher has no words too strong to express his scorn of the Christian view of the awfulness of sin.

A few months ago I stopped in a distant city and went to what seemed to be the leading church. It was the day when the new Sunday-school teachers were inducted into their office; and the preacher preached a sermon about Christian education and told his people, especially those who were to train the young, that formerly there had been a terrible view that children were lost in sin and needed a Redeemer. And he got a laugh from his congregation by quoting the old theologians about the awfulness of sin under which all men were born in this world and the need of redemption in order to escape the righteous judgment of God. He said, “People really used to believe that all children were born in sin and needed the Saviour, Jesus, but we have learned in these days that it is our duty as Christian teachers merely by the teaching of Jesus to draw out the good that is already in them.”

The question arose in my mind why he quoted the theologians, why he indulged simply in the vulgar ridicule of them, when he wanted to cast ridicule upon the doctrine of the retributive justice of God; because he could have raised a better laugh if he had quoted the words of Jesus!

Jesus said more awful things about the terribleness of sin and the retributive justice of God than any man, and it is exceedingly strange how men at the present time who claim to have Jesus as Master (they speak of him always as “the Master,” but they do not speak of him as Lord or Saviour), who claim to have Jesus as their authority in the sphere of religion, will proceed in the same breath to cast despite upon the things which are at the very center of His teaching, and at the very center of Christianity, as is the awfulness of the guilt of sin.

Do you want me to tell you what the fundamental fault with the church today is? It is this—the modern preacher, whether in the Sunday-school class, or in the home or in the pulpit, is feverishly engaged in an absolutely impossible task. He is engaged in calling the “righteous” to repentance, in trying to bring men into the church, and at the same time permit them to retain their pride in their own goodness. Even our Lord did not succeed in calling the righteous to repentance, in trying to bring men to the church, and at the same time permit them to retain their pride in their am goodness. Even our Lord did not succeed in calling the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He. At the very basis of Christian preaching is the mystery of the consciousness of sin and that is produced by the Holy Spirit, and when a man comes under the conviction of sin his whole attitude is changed.

These are the two presuppositions of the Christian message—the Christian view of the awful holiness of God and the Christian view of the terrible guilt of sin. God could only bring sinful man into His presence through the atoning death of Jesus Christ our Lord, but the account of that gospel is found in the Bible and with regard to the Bible modern Liberalism differs fundamentally from Christianity.

The Bible Absolutely Unique

The Christian view of the Bible of course makes the contents of the Bible absolutely unique. You might have all the ideas of the Bible in some other book, but you would have no Christianity; because Christianity is an account not merely of things that always were true, but an account of something that happened, and unless the thing really happened then we are still hopeless under the guilt of sin. It all depends upon the question whether, as a matter of fact, the eternal Son of God did take our sins upon Him and die instead of us on the cross.

According to the Christian view of the Bible it not only contains an account of something that happened, but contains a true account, and thus there is added to the Christian doctrine of revelation the Christian doctrine of the inspiration of the Word of God, and upon that doctrine despite is everywhere being cast today. Men are always talking about the “mechanical” view of inspiration, which makes the Biblical writers little more than stenographers. But as a matter of fact the Christian doctrine of inspiration does not deny the human characteristics of the biblical writers, nor display any lack of interest in the human means that these writers had for gathering their information, but it holds that by the Spirit of God these writers were preserved from the errors which are found in other books, and thus gave to us the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Seat of Authority According to Liberalism

But what does modern Liberalism substitute for the authority of the Bible? Sometimes a totally false impression is produced that it substitutes the authority of Jesus.

That is altogether false, because when asked what they consider the authority of Jesus, we discover that modern Liberalism rejects a great many of the recorded words of Jesus. It does not believe that Jesus ever spoke some of them, because in His recorded words in the gospels are some things most hateful to it. Modern Liberalism says that not everything recorded of Jesus in the Gospels was spoken by Jesus, and we must sort out the words which were spoken by Him and reject the rest.

But suppose we press it further. We shall discover that even in the reduced Jesus of modern liberal reconstruction there are some things abhorrent to the Liberal church, and modern Liberals if pinned down to it will say that they do not believe everything Jesus said was true, but they will say they are still Christians, they are still His followers, because they still hold to the central life purpose of Jesus.

Well, what was the central life purpose of Jesus? According to the Gospel of Mark the central life purpose of Jesus is found in His atoning death. “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for (instead of) many.”

These words are of course abhorrent to the Liberal Church. But when you ask what the central life purpose of Jesus was, you will find you are in the mire of dispute, and that they will accept as authoritative only a few of the sayings of Jesus, not because they are His sayings, but because they happen to agree with their own opinions. The real authority of the modern Liberal is not Jesus, but it is, as men say, “Christian experience.”

But what do you mean by Christian experience? What do you mean by Christian experience as authority? Surely you do not mean merely a majority vote of the organized Church. Do you mean, then, individual experience? But this is endlessly diverse, and therefore what you will have substituted for the true authority of the Word of God, is no authority at all but the shifting emotions of sinful men.

But people say what a foolish thing it is to depend upon a book! It all depends upon the book, my friends. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of a Book! May that Book again set aflame the world, and may the present bondage give place again to the glorious freedom of the sons of God!

The Christian View of Christ

When you come to the contents of the Bible everything points to the central figure—Jesus Christ. What is thought of Christ, first, by the modern liberal church and second, by Christian men?

At this point a further perplexity arises, for ask the modern liberal preacher his view of Christ, and he will say with great conviction, “I believe in the deity of Christ, I believe that Jesus is God.”

We hear much like that today. People say, “Why, after all, this great preacher is most orthodox because he believes in the deity of Christ, and those who are objecting to his presence as a leader in the church, are mere uncharitable heresy hunters.”

Do you not see, my friends, that, when they say Jesus is God, the value of that utterance depends upon what they mean by God? That little word “God” is not a bit more beautiful than any other English word. The value of it depends altogether upon what you mean by it, and when the modern liberal preacher says he believes Christ is God, he may mean God exists in all the world, God exists wherever life pulsates through humanity, and only appears fuller and plainer than any other place in the life of Jesus.

That is what is often meant, and of course that is very far from the Christian faith. Very often when he says Jesus is God, he means to use the term in this way: “We have given up,” he says, “the old notion that there is a Creator and Ruler of the world. We know nothing about that—that is metaphysical. The word ‘God’ is useful merely as expressing the highest object of men’s desires.” So when they say Jesus is God they do not mean that Jesus is the supreme ruler of the world, but simply that Jesus, though a man like the rest of men, is the highest thing we know.

Such men are further removed from the Christian faith than Unitarians. Unitarians at least believe in God, whereas these men speak highly of Jesus, call Jesus God, only because they think low of God, not because they think high of Jesus.

In another way also such men are inferior to Unitarians, inferior in the plain matter of honesty. When they say, Jesus is God, the truthfulness of that utterance depends altogether upon the audience addressed. I do not mean to deny that such liberal preachers do believe in the very core of their hearts that Jesus is God, they certainly mean that. But the great trouble is, they know perfectly well those words are going to be taken by the simple minded hearers whom they address in a way totally different from the way in which they mean it. They are offending therefore against the fundamental principle of truthfulness of language. The assertion, “I believe that Jesus is God,” is truthful before an audience of theologically trained persons who understand the modern way of thinking about God, but if it be addressed to a simple minded people, then the language is untruthful and all the best motives in the world cannot possibly excuse it. Nothing can possibly excuse language which is not in accordance with facts.

Simplicity of the Cross

Liberalism is different from Christianity also as to salvation. What is the way of salvation according to the Christian account? Two aspects are to be distinguished. In the first place, the basis of it all is in the atoning death of Christ. According to Christian belief that is a very simple thing. Men talk about the theory of the atonement as though it were a subtle thing, but you can put it in words of one syllable. We deserve eternal death. The Lord Jesus Christ, because he loved us, died instead of us on the Cross.

That certainly is not incomprehensible. It is mysterious in its depth of grace, but it is a thing that a child can understand. Do you want me to tell you what is difficult? It is not the simple Bible presentation of the death of Christ, but the manifold modern effort to get rid of that simple presentation of the Cross in the interests of human pride.

The modern liberals pour out the vials of their scorn upon the Bible presentation of the Cross of Christ. They speak of it with disgust as involving a “trick” intend to placate an “alienated God.” Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words.

People talk about Christian experience. My friends, where can Christian experience be found if not at the Cross of Christ, at that blessed place where a man knows that in a great mystery the guilt of his sin was taken by the Holy One, and borne instead of him on the Cross?

The very nerve of the Christian view of the Cross is that God Himself makes the sacrifice for our salvation. Where can love be found except at the Cross of Christ, the one who died, the just for the unjust? “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.” There, and there alone, is to be found the love that is love indeed.

The New Birth

This work of Christ is applied by the Holy Spirit of God in the new birth. You will hear very little about the new birth in modern preaching. Modern missionaries will tell you, you must give up the thought of winning individual converts in mission lands. For the new birth they are inclined to substitute “the social gospel.” But at the very centre of Christianity are the words “Ye must be born again.”

Justification by Faith

That is the work of the Spirit of God, the application of the work of Christ. But in applying the work of Christ the Spirit makes use of faith. People who have found salvation know what it means.

Liberals talk about faith in Jesus, but they mean simply admiration of Jesus. They talk about it as if the basis of the Christ life were “make Jesus Master in your life.” The Y.M.C.A., in recent years, has put the declaration of purpose to live the Christ life as somehow being on a par with the reception of the salvation which is found in the Cross of Christ. I do not see but that that is the exact opposite of faith. That means that you are trusting in your own works. Faith means not that you do something, but that you receive first the gracious gift of God. When the Lord Jesus has died for you you accept it without work of your own. You accept the gracious thing He did. And then by God’s help the good life follows.

Victory Assured

Christianity is fighting a great battle today. It is one of three great crises in the history of the Christian church. One came in the second century when Christianity was almost engulfed by paganism in the church in the form of Gnosticism. There was another in the middle ages when legalism was almost dominant in the church, similar to the modern legalism which appears in the liberal church. Christianity today is fighting a great battle, but I, for my part, am looking for ultimate victory. God will not desert His church.

Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Thirty-seven years ago, on the sacred occasion of my ordination to the gospel ministry, I answered this question in the affirmative. Today I continue to affirm in no uncertain terms this fundamental belief. I believe in the full verbal inspiration of the Bible. The Scriptures illuminated by the Holy Spirit are a necessary and effectual meals of grace for sinful man. For my personal salvation I receive and rest upon the Living Word, who is the heart and center of the Bible. The true minister of the gospel, for the fulfillment of his high mission must handle aright this word of truth, he must abide in the word, and he must preach the word.

The Bible is God-breathed

“All Scripture is given by inspiration Of God.” It is “the product of the creative breath of God–God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of His power.” Not only does the apostle Paul in this his-swan song to the young minister, Timothy, state clearly the fact of the divine origin of all Scripture, but the apostle Peter also, in his second letter, chapter one, verses 19-21, states the fact of the divine inspiration of scripture and tells something of how it was produced.

Our child’s catechism states the truth simply in answer to the question,“Who wrote the Bible? “Holy men of old who were taught by the Holy Spirit.” Our Confession of Faith states that “the scriptures, being immediately inspired of God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.”

Yet the good question may be asked, “How may we know what writings make up the divinely inspired scriptures?” To this our Confession makes this good answer: “The canon of scripture is not established by explicit passages, but by the testimony of Jesus and His apostles; of ancient manuscripts and versions; of ancient Christian writers and church councils, and by the internal evidence exhibited in the separate books.” It has been well said that “the scriptures by their own weight crushed all rivals out of existence.”

Unbelief in the divine origin and the divine authority of the Word of God was first revealed in the garden of Eden when Satan said to Eve, “Yea, hath God said”. This denial reaches international proportions today in the rejection by many of the supernatural origin of the Bible. If a minister of the gospel is to effectively fulfill his ministry it ts most fundamental that he have a firm belief in the divine inspiration of scripture.

Yet the question may be asked, “How may one have the full persuasion and assurance of the supernatural origin of the Bible?” Here again our Confession makes this good answer: “We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire, perfection thereof, are arguments whereby if doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward word of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.”

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word;
What more can we say than to you He hath said,
You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

The Bible is Christ-centered

The Bible is not only divinely inspired, but it is also Christ-centered. In the heart of the Bible is the old, old story of Jesus and His love. This wonderful story, continuing from Genesis to Revelation, is told by some 40 authors, over a period of about 1500 years.

The Living Christ, on His resurrection day, touched the Messianic heart of the Old Testament, when “beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Our first parents, ruined in the fall, were the hearers of the first gospel, according to Genesis 3:15, in which the seed of the woman was promised to bruise the serpent’s head. The whole Bible is largely an exposition of this first gospel promise. As this good news is further unfolded revealing particularly its missionary aspect, Abraham, the father of the faithful, hears it as God says to him, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”” Moses in Egypt sees symbolized in the blood of the lamb the sacrifice of the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, while the blood of the covenant at Sinai foreshadows the blood of the new covenant, poured out for many for the remission of sins. David in the poetry of the Psalms sings of the Messiah King and of His everlasting kingdom. The gospel according to Isaiah, particularly Chapter 53, considered by many the greatest chapter in the Old Testament, foretells in most vivid description, the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. The Risen Christ himself gives a summary of the Messianic heart of the Old Testament when He says, “This it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all the nations beginning from Jerusalem.”

The evangel of the four gospels is “concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up.” Four concurrent views of the same Matchless Christ are here presented. Matthew’s is the gospel of the King, with the appeal, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mark emphasizes Jesus as servant, suffering and sacrificial. “For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Luke, the beloved physician, portrays Jesus particularly in his humanity, as the perfect Man. “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.” John, the beloved disciple, emphasizes the Deity of Jesus, He who was in the beginning and with God, and was God. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” The very heart of the heart of the gospel is that golden text of the Bible, John 3:16. This is the pioneer verse on the mission fields of the world, as the pioneer song is “Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so.”

From the book of Acts on to the end of the Bible we have the apostolic message in all its fulness, the Spirit having led the writers into “all the truth.” Listen to Peter at Pentecost-what a gospel message in all its fulness! Read Paul’s master thesis on the subject of salvation in the book of Romans. Hear him as he summarizes the gospel in these words to the Corinthian church: “For I delivered unto you first of all, that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.” Read on through to the book of Revelation-the gospel of the crowned Christ, the final message from the throne of God, proclaiming victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. “And the seventh angel sounded; and there followed great voices in heaven, and they said, The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.”

Here then, in the scriptures of the Old and Hew testament is to be found a complete, unified, glorious gospel for a lost world. Of these scriptures Jesus said, “These are they which bear witness of me.”

The Bible is Indispensable as a Means of Grace

That great Bible teacher of sainted memory, Dr. W.W. White,¹ has said, “Do not fall into the error of the Jews to whom our Lord said, ‘Ye search the scriptures because ye think that intern ye have eternal life, and ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.’ The scriptures are not an end, but a means. To study them is not an act of piety, but should be an aid to piety. Their appointed mission is to lead to Christ, to build up in Christ, and to send out for Christ.”

We may well make the prayer of the hymn which says,

Beyond the sacred page, I seek Thee, Lord,
My spirit pants for Thee, O Living Word.

The scriptures “are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Without these scriptures we cannot be wise unto salvation. The necessity of Holy Scripture is eloquently expressed as follows in the first paragraph of our Confession of Faith: “Although the light of nature, and the work of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners to reveal himself and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the holy scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.”

Not only are the scriptures necessary as a means of grace for sinful men, but they give us all things that are necessary. Our Confession continues by stating that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced therefrom; unto which nothing at any time is to be added whether by new revelation or by the traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in His Word.”

Hence in the words of the Shorter Catechism: “The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners and building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.”

Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: “But as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.”–“Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.” While the Bible is indispensable as a means of grace, the Holy Spirit is indispensable to make his means of grace an effectual means. This God-breathed and Christ-centered Bible must be Spirit-illuminated.

The Spirit breathes upon the Word, And brings the truth to sight;
Precepts and promises afford, A sanctifying light.

Three Imperatives for God’s Man

Here then is a book that is God-breathed and Christ-centered, and through the Spirit’s illumination is able to make us wise unto salvation. “The entrance of Thy Word giveth light. It giveth understanding to the simple.” What must be the relation of the gospel minister to such a book? Assuming that he has answered in the affirmative his ordination vow with reference to the Bible he may do well to hear and heed three imperatives given by the apostle Paul to the young minister, Timothy. First, handle aright the word of truth; second, Abide in the word; and third, preach the word.

1. “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth,” or “holding a straight course in the word of truth.” The original word here translated “handling aright” means literally “cutting stones square to fit”. That is what the approved workman does who is not ashamed of his work. First of all, the word of truth must be handled, not left untouched. And the man of God must handle aright the sacred scriptures. He must not do as many “corrupting the word of God.–Much of the modern use of the Bible is a misuse of the Bible, which is ancient as well as modern. In the time of Christ the devil misused scripture, taking it out of its context, and out of its relation to the whole revelation. An excellent way to hold a straight well balanced course in the word of truth is to follow what our Confession of Faith calls “the infallible rule of interpretation of scripture,” which is scripture itself. The best commentary on the scripture is the inspired commentary–the Bible itself.

2. A second imperative is “Abide in the word of God.” “But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and been assured of”. The word “abide” here means “to live in”, “to take up one’s residence in”. We do well to remember that a minister should know his Bible better than any other book. A great educator said, “A knowledge of the Bible without a college education is better than a college education without a knowledge of the Bible.”² In John 8:31-32 we find these words: “Jesus therefore said to those Jews that believed on him, If ye abide in my word, then ye are my disciples and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Again He said to his disciples in that memorable farewell address: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” His words abiding in His disciples is a condition of unqualified answer to prayer.

3. A third imperative is “preach the Word.” Paul gives this admonition with emphasis. The commission of the Risen Christ was, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The apostle Paul said. We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord.” Again Paul said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in wisdom of words, lest the dross of Christ should be made void. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.” When the word of the cross is preached men are won from sin unto God.

A Famine or a Revival

In Old Testament times, through the prophet Amos, a famine in the land was threatened. “Behold, the days, come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah.” Is such a famine threatened in our world today?

a) If we could look behind man-made curtains of barriers today, would we not see vast areas of the world’s population where there is a famine of the word of God?

b) If we would look into the homes of many of our own people we would find the Bible, yes, beautifully bound copies, but rarely ever opened–a famine of the word right in our midst.

c) In the pulpits of same Christian churches, alas!, there is a famine of the word of God, which spreads into the hearts of the members of the congregation. Instead of the word they are fed upon perhaps politics, or social or industrial matters, or science, or education-not upon the word of the cross, no word of the Christian hope, while precious souls are starving for the Bread of Life, famishing for the Water of Life.

d) Once more, even in the theological seminary, when the curriculum is not Biblio-centric, when other subjects, good in themselves, or duties, important and urgent though they be, crowd out the word of God. Yes, a famine of the word is threatened today.

Many years ago the Korean church was aptly described as a New Testament church. A main reason was that it was a church with a Pentecost. Dr. George Paik has described the Korean Revival of 1907 as “the spiritual rebirth of the Korean church.” A means particularly blessed of God in bringing about rebirth, along with that of united prayer, was Bible study. The Korean church became a a Bible believing, Bible reading, Bible studying, a Bible loving, a Bible doing church. Our prayer is that this church many continue to be increasingly a New Testament church. May its ministers say from the heart with the apostles of old: “It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God and serve tables– But we, will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the Word.”

One of the greatest of the problems that have agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge and piety, between culture and Christianity. This problem has appeared first of all in the presence of two tendencies in the Church—the scientific or academic tendency, and what may be called the practical tendency. Some men have devoted themselves chiefly to the task of forming right conceptions as to Christianity and its foundations. To them no fact, however trivial, has appeared worthy of neglect; by them truth has been cherished for its own sake, without immediate reference to practical consequences. Some, on the other hand, have emphasized the essential simplicity of the gospel. The world is lying in misery, we ourselves are sinners, men are perishing in sin every day. The gospel is the sole means of escape; let us preach it to the world while yet we may. So desperate is the need that we have no time to engage in vain babblings or old wives’ fables. While we are discussing the exact location of the churches of Galatia, men are perishing under the curse of the law; while we are settling the date of Jesus’ birth, the world is doing without its Christmas message.

The representatives of both of these tendencies regard themselves as Christians, but too often there is little brotherly feeling between them. The Christian of academic tastes accuses his brother of undue emotionalism, of shallow argumentation, of cheap methods of work. On the other hand, your practical man is ever loud in his denunciation of academic indifference to the dire needs of humanity. The scholar is represented either as a dangerous disseminator of doubt, or else as a man whose faith is a faith without works. A man who investigates human sin and the grace of God by the aid solely of dusty volumes, carefully secluded in a warm and comfortable study, without a thought of the men who are perishing in misery every day!

But if the problem appears thus in the presence of different tendencies in the Church, it becomes yet far more insistent within the consciousness of the individual. If we are thoughtful, we must see that the desire to know and the desire to be saved are widely different. The scholar must apparently assume the attitude of an impartial observer—an attitude which seems absolutely impossible to the pious Christian laying hold upon Jesus as the only Saviour from the load of sin. If these two activities—on the one hand the acquisition of knowledge, and on the other the exercise and inculcation of simple faith—are both to be given a place in our lives, the question of their proper relationship cannot be ignored.

The problem is made for us the more difficult of solution because we are unprepared for it. Our whole system of school and college education is so constituted as to keep religion and culture as far apart as possible and ignore the question of the relationship between them. On five or six days in the week, we were engaged in the acquisition of knowledge. From this activity the study of religion was banished. We studied natural science without considering its bearing or lack of bearing upon natural theology or upon revelation. We studied Greek without opening the New Testament. We studied history with careful avoidance of that greatest of historical movements which was ushered in by the preaching of Jesus. In philosophy, the vital importance of the study for religion could not entirely be concealed, but it was kept as far as possible in the background. On Sundays, on the other hand, we had religious instruction that called for little exercise of the intellect.

Careful preparation for Sunday-school lessons as for lessons in mathematics or Latin was unknown. Religion seemed to be something that had to do only with the emotions and the will, leaving the intellect to secular studies. What wonder that after such training we came to regard religion and culture as belonging to two entirely separate compartments of the soul, and their union as involving the destruction of both?

Upon entering the Seminary, we are suddenly introduced to an entirely different procedure. Religion is suddenly removed from its seclusion; the same methods of study are applied to it as were formerly reserved for natural science and for history. We study the Bible no longer solely with the desire of moral and spiritual improvement, but also in order to know. Perhaps the first impression is one of infinite loss. The scientific spirit seems to be replacing simple faith, the mere apprehension of dead facts to be replacing the practice of principles. The difficulty is perhaps not so much that we are brought face to face with new doubts as to the truth of Christianity. Rather is it the conflict of method, of spirit that troubles us. The scientific spirit seems to be incompatible with the old spirit of simple faith. In short, almost entirely unprepared, we are brought face to face with the problem of the relationship between knowledge and piety, or, otherwise expressed, between culture and Christianity.

This problem may be settled in one of three ways. In the first place, Christianity may be subordinated to culture. That solution really, though to some extent unconsciously, is being favored by a very large and influential portion of the Church today. For the elimination of the supernatural in Christianity—so tremendously common today—really makes Christianity merely natural. Christianity becomes a human product, a mere part of human culture. But as such it is something entirely different from the old Christianity that was based upon a direct revelation from God. Deprived thus of its note of authority, the gospel is no gospel any longer; it is a check for untold millions—but without the signature at the bottom. So in subordinating Christianity to culture we have really destroyed Christianity, and what continues to bear the old name is a counterfeit.

The second solution goes to the opposite extreme. In its effort to give religion a clear field, it seeks to destroy culture. This solution is better than the first. Instead of indulging in a shallow optimism or deification of humanity, it recognizes the profound evil of the world, and does not shrink from the most heroic remedy. The world is so evil that it cannot possibly produce the means for its own salvation. Salvation must be the gift of an entirely new life, coming directly from God. Therefore, it is argued, the culture of this world must be a matter at least of indifference to the Christian. Now in its extreme form this solution hardly requires refutation. If Christianity is really found to contradict that reason which is our only means of apprehending truth, then of course we must either modify or abandon Christianity. We cannot therefore be entirely independent of the achievements of the intellect. Furthermore, we cannot without inconsistency employ the printing-press, the railroad, the telegraph in the propagation of our gospel, and at the same time denounce as evil those activities of the human mind that produced these things. And in the production of these things not merely practical inventive genius had a part, but also, back of that, the investigations of pure science animated simply by the desire to know. In its extreme form, therefore, involving the abandonment of all intellectual activity, this second solution would be adopted by none of us. But very many pious men in the Church today are adopting this solution in essence and in spirit. They admit that the Christian must have a part in human culture. But they regard such activity as a necessary evil—a dangerous and unworthy task necessary to be gone through with under a stern sense of duty in order that thereby the higher ends of the gospel may be attained. Such men can never engage in the arts and sciences with anything like enthusiasm—such enthusiasm they would regard as disloyalty to the gospel. Such a position is really both illogical and unbiblical. God has given us certain powers of mind, and has implanted within us the ineradicable conviction that these powers were intended to be exercised. The Bible, too, contains poetry that exhibits no lack of enthusiasm, no lack of a keen appreciation of beauty. With this second solution of the problem we cannot rest content. Despite all we can do, the desire to know and the love of beauty cannot be entirely stifled, and we cannot permanently regard these desires as evil.

Are then Christianity and culture in a conflict that is to be settled only by the destruction of one or the other of the contending forces? A third solution, fortunately, is possible—namely consecration. Instead of destroying the arts and sciences or being indifferent to them, let us cultivate them with all the enthusiasm of the veriest humanist, but at the same time consecrate them to the service of our God. Instead of stifling the pleasures afforded by the acquisition of knowledge or by the appreciation of what is beautiful, let us accept these pleasures as the gifts of a heavenly Father. Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.

Certain obvious advantages are connected with such a solution of the problem. In the first place, a logical advantage. A man can believe only what he holds to be true. We are Christians because we hold Christianity to be true. But other men hold Christianity to be false. Who is right? That question can be settled only by an examination and comparison of the reasons adduced on both sides. It is true, one of the grounds for our belief is an inward experience that we cannot share—the great experience begun by conviction of sin and conversion and continued by communion with God—an experience which other men do not possess, and upon which, therefore, we cannot directly base an argument. But if our position is correct, we ought at least to be able to show the other man that his reasons may be inconclusive. And that involves careful study of both sides of the question. Furthermore, the field of Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely extensively, but also intensively. The Church must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. We are accustomed to encourage ourselves in our discouragements by the thought of the time when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No less inspiring is the other aspect of that same great consummation. That will also be a time when doubts have disappeared, when every contradiction has been removed, when all of science converges to one great conviction, when all of art is devoted to one great end, when all of human thinking is permeated by the refining, ennobling influence of Jesus, when every thought has been brought into subjection to the obedience of Christ.

If to some of our practical men, these advantages of our solution of the problem seem to be intangible, we can point to the merely numerical advantage of intellectual and artistic activity within the Church. We are all agreed that at least one great function of the Church is the conversion of individual men. The missionary movement is the great religious movement of our day. Now it is perfectly true that men must be brought to Christ one by one. There are no laborsaving devices in evangelism. It is all hand-work.

And yet it would be a great mistake to suppose that all men are equally well prepared to receive the gospel. It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. But as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root. Many would have the seminaries combat error by attacking it as it is taught by its popular exponents. Instead of that they confuse their students with a lot of German names unknown outside the walls of the universities. That method of procedure is based simply upon a profound belief in the pervasiveness of ideas. What is today matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combatted; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. Thoughtful men are wondering why the students of our great Eastern universities no longer enter the ministry or display any very vital interest in Christianity. Various totally inadequate explanations are proposed, such as the increasing attractiveness of other professions—an absurd explanation, by the way, since other professions are becoming so over-crowded that a man can barely make a living in them. The real difficulty amounts to this—that the thought of the day, as it makes itself most strongly felt in the universities, but from them spreads inevitably to the masses of the people, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least—what is nearly as bad—it is out of all connection with Christianity. The Church is unable either to combat it or to assimilate it, because the Church simply does not understand it. Under such circumstances, what more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who. therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience—what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error? The Church has no right to be so absorbed in helping the individual that she forgets the world.

There are two objections to our solution of the problem. If you bring culture and Christianity thus into close union—in the first place, will not Christianity destroy culture? Must not art and science be independent in order to flourish? We answer that it all depends upon the nature of their dependence. Subjection to any external authority or even to any human authority would be fatal to art and science. But subjection to God is entirely different. Dedication of human powers to God is found, as a matter of fact, not to destroy but to heighten them. God gave those powers. He understands them well enough not bunglingly to destroy His own gifts. In the second place, will not culture destroy Christianity? Is it not far easier to be an earnest Christian if you confine your attention to the Bible and do not risk being led astray by the thought of the world? We answer, of course it is easier. Shut yourself up in an intellectual monastery, do not disturb yourself with the thoughts of unregenerate men, and of course you will find it easier to be a Christian, just as it is easier to be a good soldier in comfortable winter quarters than it is on the field of battle. You save your own soul—but the Lord’s enemies remain in possession of the field.

But by whom is this task of transforming the unwieldy, resisting mass of human thought until it becomes subservient to the gospel—by whom is this task to be accomplished? To some extent, no doubt, by professors in theological seminaries and universities. But the ordinary minister of the gospel cannot shirk his responsibility. It is a great mistake to suppose that investigation can successfully be carried on by a few specialists whose work is of interest to nobody but themselves. Many men of many minds are needed. What we need first of all, especially in our American churches, is a more general interest in the problems of theological science. Without that, the specialist is without the stimulating atmosphere which nerves him to do his work.

But no matter what his station in life, the scholar must be a regenerated man—he must yield to no one in the intensity and depth of his religious experience. We are well supplied in the world with excellent scholars who are without that qualification. They are doing useful work in detail, in Biblical philology, in exegesis, in Biblical theology, and in other branches of study. But they are not accomplishing the great task, they are not assimilating modern thought to Christianity, because they are without that experience of God’s power in the soul which is of the essence of Christianity. They have only one side for the comparison. Modern thought they know, but Christianity is really foreign to them. It is just that great inward experience which it is the function of the true Christian scholar to bring into some sort of connection with the thought of the world.

During the last thirty years there has been a tremendous defection from the Christian Church. It is evidenced even by things that lie on the surface. For example, by the decline in church attendance and in Sabbath observance and in the number of candidates for the ministry. Special explanations, it is true, are sometimes given for these discouraging tendencies. But why should we deceive ourselves, why comfort ourselves by palliative explanations? Let us face the facts. The falling off in church attendance, the neglect of Sabbath observance—these things are simply surface indications of a decline in the power of Christianity. Christianity is exerting a far less powerful direct influence in the civilized world today than it was exerting thirty years ago.

What is the cause of this tremendous defection? For my part, I have little hesitation in saying that it lies chiefly in the intellectual sphere. Men do not accept Christianity because they can no longer be convinced that Christianity is true. It may be useful, but is it true? Other explanations, of course, are given. The modern defection from the Church is explained by the practical materialism of the age. Men are so much engrossed in making money that they have no time for spiritual things. That explanation has a certain range of validity. But its range is limited. It applies perhaps to the boom towns of the West, where men are intoxicated by sudden possibilities of boundless wealth. But the defection from Christianity is far broader than that. It is felt in the settled countries of Europe even more strongly than in America. It is felt among the poor just as strongly as among the rich. Finally it is felt most strongly of all in the universities, and that is only one indication more that the true cause of the defection is intellectual. To a very large extent, the students of our great Eastern universities—and still more the universities of Europe—are not Christians. And they are not Christians often just because they are students. The thought of the day, as it makes itself most strongly felt in the universities, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least it is out of connection with Christianity. The chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect.

That assertion must be guarded against two misconceptions.

In the first place, I do not mean that most men reject Christianity consciously on account of intellectual difficulties. On the contrary, rejection of Christianity is due in the vast majority of cases simply to indifference. Only a few men have given the subject real attention. The vast majority of those who reject the gospel do so simply because they know nothing about it. But whence comes this indifference? It is due to the intellectual atmosphere in which men are living. The modern world is dominated by ideas which ignore the gospel. Modern culture is not altogether opposed to the gospel. But it is out of all connection with it. It not only prevents the acceptance of Christianity. It prevents Christianity even from getting a hearing.

In the second place, I do not mean that the removal of intellectual objections will make a man a Christian. No conversion was ever wrought simply by argument. A change of heart is also necessary. And that can be wrought only by the immediate exercise of the power of God. But because intellectual labor is insufficient it does not follow. as is so often assumed, that it is unnecessary. God may, it is true, overcome all intellectual obstacles by an immediate exercise of His regenerative power. Sometimes He does. But He does so very seldom. Usually He exerts His power in connection with certain conditions of the human mind. Usually He does not bring into the Kingdom, entirely without preparation, those whose mind and fancy are completely dominated by ideas which make the acceptance of the gospel logically impossible.

Modern culture is a tremendous force. It affects all classes of society. It affects the ignorant as well as the learned. What is to be done about it? In the first place the Church may simply withdraw from the conflict. She may simply allow the mighty stream of modern thought to flow by unheeded and do her work merely in the back-eddies of the current. There are still some men in the world who have been unaffected by modern culture. They may still be won for Christ without intellectual labor. And they must be won. It is useful, it is necessary work. If the Church is satisfied with that alone, let her give up the scientific education of her ministry. Let her assume the truth of her message and learn simply how it may be applied in detail to modern industrial and social conditions. Let her give up the laborious study of Greek and Hebrew. Let her abandon the scientific study of history to the men of the world. In a day of increased scientific interest, let the Church go on becoming less scientific. In a day of increased specialization, of renewed interest in philology and in history, of more rigorous scientific method, let the Church go on abandoning her Bible to her enemies. They will study it scientifically, rest assured, if the Church does not. Let her substitute sociology altogether for Hebrew, practical expertness for the proof of her gospel. Let her shorten the preparation of her ministry, let her permit it to be interrupted yet more and more by premature practical activity. By doing so she will win a straggler here and there. But her winnings will be but temporary. The great current of modern culture will sooner or later engulf her puny eddy. God will save her somehow—out of the depths. But the labor of centuries will have been swept away. God grant that the Church may not resign herself to that. God grant she may face her problem squarely and bravely. That problem is not easy. It involves the very basis of her faith. Christianity is the proclamation of an historical fact—that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Modern thought has no place for that proclamation. It prevents men even from listening to the message. Yet the culture of today cannot simply be rejected as a whole. It is not like the pagan culture of the first century. It is not wholly nonChristian. Much of it has been derived directly from the Bible. There are significant movements in it, going to waste, which might well be used for the defence of the gospel. The situation is complex. Easy wholesale measures are not in place. Discrimination, investigation is necessary. Some of modern thought must be refuted. The rest must be made subservient. But nothing in it can be ignored. He that is not with us is against us. Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.

The situation is desperate. It might discourage us. But not if we are truly Christians. Not if we are living in vital communion with the risen Lord. If we are really convinced of the truth of our message, then we can proclaim it before a world of enemies, then the very difficulty of our task, the very scarcity of our allies becomes an inspiration, then we can even rejoice that God did not place us in an easy age, but in a time of doubt and perplexity and battle. Then, too, we shall not be afraid to call forth other soldiers into the conflict. Instead of making our theological seminaries merely centres of religious emotion, we shall make them battle-grounds of the faith, where, helped a little by the experience of Christian teachers, men are taught to fight their own battle, where they come to appreciate the real strength of the adversary and in the hard school of intellectual struggle learn to substitute for the unthinking faith of childhood the profound convictions of full-grown men. Let us not fear in this a loss of spiritual power. The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it. She is winning victories in the sphere of material betterment. Such victories are glorious. God save us from the heartless crime of disparaging them. They are relieving the misery of men. But if they stand alone, I fear they are but temporary. The things which are seen are temporal; the things which are not seen are eternal. What will become of philanthropy if God be lost? Beneath the surface of life lies a world of spirit. Philosophers have attempted to explore it. Christianity has revealed its wonders to the simple soul. There lie the springs of the Church’s power. But that spiritual realm cannot be entered without controversy. And now the Church is shrinking from the conflict. Driven from the spiritual realm by the current of modern thought, she is consoling herself with things about which there is no dispute. If she favors better housing for the poor, she need fear no contradiction. She will need all her courage. she will have enemies enough, God knows. But they will not fight her with argument. The twentieth century, in theory, is agreed on social betterment. But sin, and death, and salvation, and life, and God—about these things there is debate. You can avoid the debate if you choose. You need only drift with the current. Preach every Sunday during your Seminary course, devote the fag ends of your time to study and to thought, study about as you studied in college—and these questions will probably never trouble you. The great questions may easily be avoided. Many preachers are avoiding them. And many preachers are preaching to the air. The Church is waiting for men of another type. Men to fight her battles and solve her problems. The hope of finding them is the one great inspiration of a Seminary’s life. They need not all be men of conspicuous attainments. But they must all be men of thought. They must fight hard against spiritual and intellectual indolence. Their thinking may be confined to narrow limits. But it must be their own. To them theology must be something more than a task. It must be a matter of inquiry. It must lead not to successful memorizing, but to genuine convictions.

The Church is puzzled by the world’s indifference. She is trying to overcome it by adapting her message to the fashions of the day. But if, instead, before the conflict, she would descend into the secret place of meditation, if by the clear light of the gospel she would seek an answer not merely to the questions of the hour but, first of all, to the eternal problems of the spiritual world, then perhaps, by God’s grace, through His good Spirit, in His good time, she might issue forth once more with power, and an age of doubt might be followed by the dawn of an era of faith.

For more on J. Gresham Machen, see my Timeline of the Presbyterian Conflict.

We also have additional data on the ancestry of my paternal grandmother, Katherine Elizabeth Higgins. The Higgins family came from Ireland, and was known as O’Higgins in the old country.

“Father Higgins” (a paternal great, great, grandfather) was a Baptist preacher. He had a large family. One of his sons was William M. Higgins who lived in Lincoln County.

William M. Higgins (a paternal great grandfather) first married Katherine McRoberts (who came from Scotland). Their children were:

1. John, who had one daughter, Julia, home: Richmond, Ky.
2. Chris, whose home was in Texas.

He next married Elizabeth McRoberts (sister of his first wife). Their children were:

1. William H. Higgins. His wife was Nannie Alcorn. Their children:
   • Alfred, a Presbyterian preacher. (Sept. 20, 1880 - Jan. 25, 1930)
   • Harry, a doctor who lived on Chamberlayne Ave, Richmond Va. near Union Theological Seminary.
   • Mary, married Richard Fewell of Rock Hill is near that of my father (Joseph Hopper) in the Rock Hill cemetery.
   • Elizabeth who also married Richard Fewell after her sister’s death.
   • Katherine Elizabeth (my grandmother) who married George Dunlap Hopper.
   • Margaret Anne, who never married.

I found out more about Father Higgins in A History of Kentucky Baptists:

John S. Higgins was the second pastor of Forks of Dix River church. He was born in New Jersey, Dec. 29, 1789. In 1805 he emigrated with his parents to Ohio, and, five years later, to Woodford county, Kentucky. He was baptized by Edmund Waller, in 1813, and commenced exhorting a few weeks afterwards. Being impressed with a call to preach the gospel, he attended a grammar school in Fayette county, that he might be the better prepared for that work. He moved to Lincoln county, in 1815, and, on December 27th of that year, was ordained to the pastoral care of McCormack’s church, by John Rice and David Thurman. About the same time, he was called to the care of Hanging Fork (now New Providence) church, to which he ministered with good success about twenty years. At this place he baptized Strother Cook, who became a useful preacher. In 1820 he was called to succeed the venerable Randolph Hall in the pastoral care of Forks of Dix River church, to which he ministered about nineteen years. Here he baptized Burdett Kemper, who succeeded him in the pastoral care of that church, and John L. Smith who has attained considerable eminence in the gospel ministry.

John S. Higgins was a man of eminent respectability. He was not only successful in his pastoral labors, but preached abundantly in all the surrounding country. Among the churches he gathered was that in Danville, to which he ministered until it could secure a pastor. He resided on a farm, and, by industry and economy, acquired a comfortable property. He was twice married, and raised a large and respectable family. At the age of four score years, he died at his home in Lincoln county, surrounded by an affectionate family, in 1872.

I also found William Higgins’ obituary:

The news of the death of Mr. William M. Higgins, which came Sunday, was the source of great surprise and sorrow. He had only been sick for a few days, but his disease was inflammation of the bowels and hemorrhage and rapidly destroyed his vital forces. The end came at 4 A. M. on the 18th and yesterday after a service at Walnut Flat at 1 0’clock by Rev. A. V. Sizemore, a large procession of friends followed the remains to their last resting place in Buffalo cemetery.

Mr. Higgins was born in this county Dec. 24, 1820 and was therefore a little over 73 years of age. He joined the Baptist church when quite young and in all the long years of his life, lived a conscientious Christian, which is equivalent to saying that he was an upright and excellent citizen in every way, honored by his neighbors and loved by his friends.

Of the family there are still a full brother and sister, Mrs. W. F. Goggin, of Somerset, and S. S. Higgins, of Oregon, and a half brother, Mr. Tim W. Higgins, of Louisville. Mr. Higgins was twice married, his first wife being a sister of the last, and were Misses Catherine and Elizabeth McRoberts.

Two children was the result of the first union and three of the latter, the survivors being Messrs. John A. and W. H. Higgins and Mrs. George D. Hopper, all excellent citizens who honor their worthy parentage.

The sympathy of many loving friends is with them in their sudden and sad bereavement, and more especially do they grieve with the widow upon whom the loss more severely falls. May she find the God of consolation promised by Him Who is too wise to err, to good to be unkind. An affectionate, loving family has been broken up on earth to be reunited, let us pray, in a land that is fairer than day.

While waiting for Sunday dinner in the home of the Hong family of Oo-nam Myun Imsil County, North Chulla Province, Republic of Korea, we saw a tall stack of books in the corner. The father of our host, an elderly gentleman, answered our question about them by showing us that they were the records of his family going back for over a thousand years. Mr. Hong said that every thirty years, those with his surname gathered and updated this registry. They planned at their next meeting to send a printed record with names and photographs of all the Hong clan members to the national libraries of every nation on earth, so that in future generations their descendants who migrated to those countries could trace their family ancestry.

Unfortunately no such system has been in existence for most Western families, including our own. I never knew my two grandfathers who died long before I was born, and my grandmothers died when I was very young so that I have only the dimmest memories of them. An attempt to trace our antecedents more than a couple of centuries would now be difficult, if not impossible. In our case, interest would center in the family tree of my father (the Hoppers of Kentucky) and my mother (the Barrons of South Carolina), and for Dot that of her father (the Longeneckers of Pennsylvania) and her mother (the Hauharts of Missouri). This would result in a blend for our own children of blood from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland… so far as we know.

One common factor in all of these is that they were strong Christians (at least in recent generations and perhaps before that) and represent Presbyterian, Methodist, and Mennonite backgrounds. Another common feature is that all our ancestors of two generations ago (that of our grandparents) were farmers, living in rural areas, who during their lifetime moved to urban areas. All of them were hard-working, decent, respected members of their communities. There is no record of any “black sheep” nor of any who failed in their family, community, and church relationships.

Dorothy Anne Longenecker Hopper (Mrs. Joe B. Hopper) , generally known as Dot, was the daughter of J. Hershey Longenecker and Minnie Hauhart Longenecker. In recording her Longenecker ancestry, it is necessary to rely very heavily on her father’s book “Memories of Congo, Tales of adventure and work in the heart of Africa.” Considerable material was edited out by his publishers, but fortunately we have his preliminary manuscripts which are more detailed. Therefore we will here virtually copy from his book and insert matters of interest from those earlier manuscripts.

It is interesting that on the page opposite the title page in this book, Dot’s father quoted the very same verse that my father used so often and preached on many times:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

We begin with his own introduction of himself:

As the second son born into the family of John E. Longenecker, and Lizzie H. Hershey at Landisville, Pennsylvania, May 23, 1889, I was given Mother’s family name, Hershey. This was about the time of the Johnstown Flood. The Longeneckers had come from Switzerland in 1729, and the Hersheys no later, though I have no record of that date. But I know that they too came from Switzerland. The ancestry on both sides of the family was Mennonite. In the home both English and the Pennsylvania Dutch dialect were spoken, but only the English language was taught in school.

Seven of us eight children lived to grow up. The other six were: Martin, Anna Mae, Bert, Roy, Mary, and Earl (?). At three weeks of age I had a severe case of whooping cough. Three times Mother thought I was dead in her arms. The first two times she was willing to give me up. The third time she was not. But I lived. As a child I was not very strong. I was kept out of school one full year, because my physical development lagged behind that of my brain. Then I returned to school and entered the same class I had left, thus losing no time.

Our parents, and so far as known the ancestry for many generations, were consecrated Christians. There were prayers at meals, family prayers with Bible Reading, regular attendance at Sunday School, Christian Endeavor Society and two preaching services on Sundays, and prayer meeting on Wednesday nights. Father and Mother were totally devoted to God, to each other, and to us children.

There was plenty of work for everybody. During vacations and outside of school hours we were kept busy much of the time with housework, cutting and carrying firewood, feeding and watering cows and horses, caring for chickens and pigs, and helping Father with his work. We assisted with truck gardening. For some years Father engaged in a small green grocery business, selling fruits and vegetables with two wagons from house to house. In helping him we boys learned something of getting along with people, though I was very timid. One summer I drove the baker’s wagon selling bread and here I learned to get along with a vicious horse.

But our parents also believed in recreation for children, so we had time to read books from the Sunday School library. I did not go in much for sports in general but did like ice skating and fishing and shooting. We played indoor games at home, such as checkers, crokinole and anagrams. We also played croquet on our pretty lawn.

The years passed and I graduated from Mount Joy High School (Lancaster County, Pa.) I had made my profession of faith and united with the church when I was fourteen. But I am not sure about the time of my conversion. I had three different religious experiences, but of these the third seems to have been my real conversion, when I sensed the joy of sins forgiven as never before. This was a few years after I joined the Church. This was not the Mennonite Church, but what is known as the Church of God (Winebrennerian), which my parents had joined some years before. It resembled in various ways the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist Churches.

At sixteen I left home, trying to sell aluminum cooking utensils. But I was too timid, not aggressive enough, to be a good salesman. I went to Lebanon, Pennsylvania, and was just well started, when the police clamped down with some old law forbidding canvassing from house to house. That ended my career as a salesman.

Then my grandmother died, and I was invited to come to Philadelphia to live with my Grandfather Hershey and two aunts. Grandfather was an earnest Christian, also he was lots of fun. In greeting visitors to his house, he would say with a happy smile, “The Lord be with us.” During the days I would be away working. But at supper in the evenings, and especially after a good Sunday dinner, Grandfather entertained us with the most amusing stories. Sometimes we laughed until our sides ached.

As I was reading quite a lot of fiction, grandfather once asked me whether I had read the Bible through. I admitted that I had not. But I began. For about eight years I gave up the reading of fiction. I did read the newspaper and biographies and other non-fiction. But I majored on the Bible and as a result I was so familiar with the King James version of the New Testament that I would have recognized at once any error in anyone’s reading aloud from the Book. The text for many a sermon has come to me in the hours of the night from the treasure house of memory.

While living with Grandfather I received a gift that pleased me very much. It was a toy electric motor, or rather the parts for the motor, with instructions for assembling it. After assembling and operating it, I became intensely interested in simple electricity. The Friends’ Public Library was not far away, and there I borrowed how-to-do-it books which helped me to make a number of simple things such as electro-magnets, induction coils, buzzers, and electric batteries. My best job was making a set of shocking coils. One of my friends who knew more about electricity than I did laughed at my crude outfit, and doubted whether it had any power. So he got the first chance to try it . And was he shocked! He quaked so violently as to pull down my battery and it was smashed.

Like many experiences of my boyhood this work with electricity helped me greatly when I worked at the Mission Press many years later. There I needed electricity for the operation of a Monotype type-casting machine. My boyhood experiments encouraged me to go through with taking to Congo a steam boiler, steam engine, electric generator, and the type-casting machine itself. So the playthings of my boyhood had considerable importance in the greatest work of my life.

I got a job in a large factory painting wooden tanks for storage batteries. It was dirty work, and my companions for the most part were uneducated men would never be anything more than day laborers. There were, however, two notable exceptions. One was a little old carpenter who was a Methodist local preacher and read Dickens, and the other was a Scotch rug weaver. Both of these intelligent, capable men took such work as this during dull seasons in their own lines of work.

My reason for taking this job at the Electric Storage Battery Company was that I hoped to become an electrical engineer. But it seemed that the openings for training went to those more favored, and I might have to wait a long time for an opening. There came an opportunity to work at the Western Electric Company. My first task was splicing wires in telephone cables. This work was done by a gang working together. The gang received a bonus if it exceeded a certain quota. This led to keen interest on the part of all to see that no one lagged. Before I could become proficient in the work, others kept prodding me to work faster. After about three days I could take no more prodding and gave up the job. But that three days gave me ideas which I used later in Africa for organizing piecework in the production of lumber, and still later at the Mission Press.

Through a friend I got employment at the Hale and Kilburn Manufacturing Company. Their chief business was the production of car seats for railway passenger cars and street railway trolley cars. Here I worked as an office boy in the upholstery department, as well as timekeeper for the upholsterers who worked on a piecework system. Here I learned how men react when they fear the cutting of piecework rates. They warned any man who could work faster than the rest, that if he earned too much the rates would be cut and all would lose money.

One night I dreamed that I had entered the Williamson Trade School not far from Philadelphia. Father had once suggested this possibility to me, but at the time the idea did not appeal to me in the least. Now I wished to go there, and my parents agreed that I should apply for admission. But the chances were nine to one that I would not be admitted. It was reported that seventy boys would be accepted, and there were seven hundred applicants, of whom four hundred were actually examined at the school.

Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades, Delaware County, Pa., was said to be the first trade school in America. It was founded by a Quaker bachelor merchant of Philadelphia who left two and one half million dollars to build and endow the school. It was designed to give an education thorough training in mechanical trades, plus a well balanced English education, to poor boys without cost. While on a schedule which required strict obedience and hard work and study, the student received tuition, board, lodging, and all needed clothing, for three years, as a free gift. The boys who were admitted were fortunate indeed, and I was one of them, from 1907 to 1910. The excellent training received there has been of incalculable value to me in my work throughout the years in Africa. In fact that training is what took me to Africa when I planned to go to the Orient. Because Jesus was a carpenter, I chose the carpentering trade. This course included an excellent course in cabinet making.

I did not want to be a preacher or a teacher or a missionary. I did wish to become a wealthy building contractor, and have much money to give to the Church and to missions.

After graduation I went with some fellow graduates to Flint, Michigan, where Earle Schaeffer, one of our alumni, was already employed. My Williamson School roommate, Elmer Kleinginna, and I started to work for building contractors in the rapidly growing city, and each of us bought a lot on the installment plan. He was a mason and I was a carpenter. We planned to work as partners building houses for sale.

But in the year 1910 the automotive industry suffered a terrible slump. Some thought the automobile business had already passed its peak, and was on its way out. People were laid off in the thousands. The population of Flint dropped fifty per cent in a few weeks. So Elmer and I got jobs in Detroit for a while. then friends in Flint invited me back to work for the Buick Motor Company, which had been reorganized as part of General Motors Corporation. For some months I worked there as an automobile body maker. Car bodies were built almost entirely of wood in those days, and the assembly and finishing of woodwork was really skilled labor. But Elmer and I still looked forward to the building business.

We had heard something of the work of the “Soul Winners Society,” a home mission project in the mountains of the south. Elmer suggested that we volunteer for that work. The financial arrangement was that we would receive no salary. Dr. Edward O. Guerrant, founder of the Society, distributed to the workers such funds as the Lord sent. He was a great preacher who had left the pastorate of a large city church to do this work. Before he entered the ministry he had been a successful physician. He was one of the most dynamic personalities I ever knew.

Elmer’s suggestion was not to my liking. I was willing to work for the Lord, but I did not want to receive money for it. I wanted to support myself, and help to support others. But face the question I must, and it was not easy. A great battle raged within my soul. At last the matter was settled on my knees. It seemed hard indeed to give up the idea of financial independence. At last I told the Lord I was willing to do whatever He wanted me to do. So Elmer and I started for Kentucky. We were first to erect a mission school building at Heidelburg, in the mountainous lumber and coal mining area of Lee County. After completing that job, Elmer remained as principal of the Beechwood Seminary, and I was sent away back into the mountains of Breathitt County, which was then called “Bloody Breathitt,” because of its feuds.¹

We have the diary or journal Hershey kept² from Aug. 27, 1911 through March 29, 1912 while he was working in Breathitt County.³ It gives a day by day account in great detail of his activities during this period. There are numerous references to Dr. Guerrant who seems to have travelled and visited constantly throughout these rugged mountain districts and personally supervised the building of schools and churches. Details of the construction projects are related, and there are several pages of accounts, listing contributions to this work and the amounts spent on each type of material.

Along with this are his personal accounts kept by turning his journal upside down and writing from the other end of the book. Here is a sample:

In the early part of this diary he mentioned “Pearl” a number of times. Just who she was is not clear.

Sept. 2, 1911. This was Pearl’s birthday and I thought of her often, and of her surprise party one year ago.

Sept. 8, 1911. I had a very agreeable dream last night about Pearl. But I expected a letter from her this morning and did not get it.

Sept. 9, 1911. I have been looking for a letter from Pearl in vain for three days. Somehow I have had a peculiar feeling about the friendship for some time. It just seems to me that she cannot care so much as she once did or she would write more frequently. What will be the result of my feeling in the matter I do not know. But an outright break would be more desirable than this suspense and uncertainty…

Eventually he did break off the affair, but it was not many months before his correspondence with his Aunt Alice in Philadelphia led to his ardent letter writing to Minnie Hauhart which is related below. Evidently he also had some difficulties with Elmer Kleinginna over the matter of which had authority in carrying on their construction work. This caused him considerable anguish for some time, but eventually they had a long frank talk and seemed to have settled things amicably. Preaching in various circumstances seemed to have been a large part of his work…in fact almost every day he seems to have been helping with such services somewhere (often along with Elmer who must have been quite an effective preacher).

Oct. 8, 1911. I rose about 6:30 this morning and had a very nice chat with Bro. John (Durbin), after which we had breakfast. Sister Durbin had very nice friend chicken and the best biscuit I have eaten in Kentucky. They were so light and fluffy. I conducted family worship by and by , reading the 107 Psalm. After more conversation I “went up into the mountain apart to pray” and prepare for my sermon. I had not definitely decided what to preach, but I thin decided to preach on the subject of “Prayer,” u sing the parable of the unjust judge. I enjoyed the view from the point of the mountain so much. The Lord blessed me with utterance so that I really had pleasure in preaching to an audience of about 30.

After the service two ladies each gave me 35 cents, saying that that is they way they treat their preacher. I told them I had not been paid for a sermon before. They said they ought to pay me for the preaching helped them so much. Bro. Durbin made the total $1.00.

Oct. 19, 1911. Tonight Elmer conducted the prayer service. We were so glad to have two women take part in testimony. About 100 or 110 were present. I found it necessary to chase the pigs from under the building before service. I tried to get out some dogs that disturbed the service, but succeeded with only one.

Nov. 14, 1911. Sunday morning rose about 6:45 and it was raining heavily. It was becoming colder all the time… It soon began to sleet, raising the question of whether I should go to Ida May. But I felt my only place was at Ida May. So I walked up there through a driving sleet storm. The scenery along my way was as desolate and melancholy as I have ever seen. But I thought that the Good Shepherd has sought many sheep in just such weather. There were 17 in S.S. at Mrs. Kleity’s house…

On my way back the Lord gave me the leading thoughts for Sunday night’s sermon. I taught my class here with 12 present. Mr. Davis was in the class for the day.

After S.S. I came home to prepare my sermon but young Mr. Pike dropped into the room and so I had an extended talk with him. After he left I went over the sermon. There may have been about 50 present for the evening service.

There are also detailed accounts of his actual carpentry work in building schools and churches. He wrote of what he had done each day, the materials used, and of the general progress of his work. Evidently the people of the community as well as Dr. Guerrant and other leaders were highly pleased with the results of his labors. In his book, he wrote:

Living alone in a shack on the mountainside near the church, I taught a little school on weekdays and preached on Sundays. Also I cooked my own meals, without benefit of supermarkets. Later I was assigned to the building of another mission school, but on three different sites the work was started and then blocked because the land was involved in litigation, or for some other reason.

Near the end of his time in Kentucky, his diary reports:

Mr. K. brought home the Missionary Survey last night in which is Dr. Morris’s account of his trip through the mountains. Elmer and I felt somewhat disappointed that he did not mention us as preaching, but only conducting prayer meetings. But we came for the sake of lost souls, and not for a name…

Of us, Dr. Morris says: “Two young men, graduates of a technological school in Philadelphia gave up each a salary of $4 per day to accept $25 per month and being practical mechanics are building with their own hands a $2500 school building. Consecrated, earnest Christians, they conduct prayer services in the town and surrounding hamlets.”

We continue from the account in his book.

Dr. Guerrant was getting old, and was turning over his work to the denominations willing to take it. So a minister friend⁴ advised me to enter the ministry in the Methodist or the Presbyterian Church. I studied the doctrines of both churches for some months, and then decided that I belonged in the Presbyterian Church. The Presbytery of Transylvania sent me to preach in a mining town at Stearns, Kentucky. However, the Presbytery also wished to send me to Theological Seminary. I would have preferred not to go to Seminary, but on the insistence of the Presbytery I agreed to go, and they sent me to the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, assisting me with work and scholarships so I could complete the three years of study without debt. After two years in mountain mission work, I was in seminary from 1913 to 1916.

During most of my Seminary course I was also preaching. In my middle year I began to preach at the Berry Boulevard Church in the suburbs of Louisville, and on graduation was ordained pastor of that Church in 1916.

During the Seminary course I heard a sermon by Dr. Vander Meulen of the Second Church in Louisville. It was not a missionary sermon. Only incidentally there was a sentence to the effect that half the world had not even heard the name of Christ. That sentence impressed me greatly. While there was much distorted preaching of the Gospel in the mountains in those days, I knew that anyone in those hills who really wanted the Gospel could have access to it. But what about those people who had never had a chance? As a result of my cogitations I discussed the matter with my fiancee and we agreed to offer ourselves for service in foreign lands. First we proposed China or Japan or Korea. But Dr. Egbert W. Smith, our Board Secretary, when he learned of my earlier education, urged that we volunteer for Africa, where my trade training was greatly needed. So at last our faces were turned to Africa. We were appointed in 1916. the war delayed our going, but in 1917 we sailed for the Belgian Congo.

One of the most interesting stories in his book is that of the courtship of Dot’s parents. Publishers of his book wanted to omit this, but he insisted, and I am here copying the full account in his initial manuscript.

From the time I was sixteen I prayed that the Lord would prepare a life partner for me. But I didn’t really do anything about it except to pray. I never had a girl friend or a date until I was twenty-one. Then in Michigan I did have a girl friend for a while. But when I left there our letters became fewer and fewer, until they stopped.

So Elmer and I were two lonely bachelors boarding at a country hotel in the lumber village of Heidelburg, Kentucky, while we were busy building the Beechwood Seminary.

My Aunt Alice in Philadelphia had been my best pal while I lived with her and Grandfather, and afterwards. While a student at Williamson Trade School I spent all of my free week-ends at their home. She continue to write to me after I went to Michigan and Kentucky. One day returning to the hotel from our building work we stopped at the Post Office. I received one letter, and a packet which looked as if it might contain a photograph. Both were from Aunt Alice. Waiting until I reached our room to open them, I wondered what the picture might be. Here I quote from my diary under date of October 9, 1911:

After some little guessing I decided it must be a picture of her school. What was my surprise upon opening the packet to find the picture of a beautiful young woman. I was not prepared to analyze my feelings, but as nearly as I can tell there were mingled a strong admiration and a hope that she was not an impossibility. The letter gave a wonderful write-up of the qualities and accomplishments of this attractive young lady. Picture and letter together had quite an effect on me. I read the letter and looked at the picture time and again.

The picture was that of Miss Minnie C. Hauhart, Aunt Alice’s friend from St. Louis, Missouri. She had gone east to visit her sister on Long Island, then went to visit a friend at a school for training Christian workers at Nyack on the Hudson. During the latter visit there came an urgent call for a teacher in a Presbyterian school for Italians in Germantown. Miss Hauhart answered and accepted the position. Part of the compensation was to board in the large and beautiful home of Mrs. Beck, where my two aunts, my Grandfather, and my sister Mary, lived. Everybody admired and loved her, but she and Aunt Alice became very close friends. This happened while I was working in Michigan.

The letter explained that on her return to St. Louis she had sent this photograph to Aunt Alice. My younger brother Martin happened to visit there. He saw the picture and went into raptures. He said he wished he were older. Aunt Alice told him he was too young… Miss Hauhart was nearer Hershey’s age. He said he just wished Hershey could meet her. But she explained that as Hershey was in the mountains of Kentucky, and Miss Hauhart in Missouri, there seemed to be no hope of our meeting. Then in jest she said, “The only thing I could do would be to send him her picture.” Immediately he began urging her to send it, and was so persistent that she finally agreed, and this was the result.

Next day my diary states; “I wrote a twenty page letter to Aunt Anna and an eight page letter to Aunt Alice. I teased Aunt Alice quite a little and asked Aunt Anna some pretty serious questions…” I wrote Aunt Alice I thought she ought to be prosecuted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Bachelors. But I asked Aunt Anna very seriously for her opinion of Miss Hauhart, and concluded by asking whether she thought I would have any chance to win the young lady’s hand. She answered my other questions in ways which showed that she held her in highest esteem. But to my final question she replied, “That is something you must find out for yourself.” My diary (October 16) states: “Tonight I received a most interesting letter from Aunt Alice in response to my reply to her letter about Miss H.” I had asked Aunt Alice for Miss Hauhart’s address. She sent it.

They had discussed the possibility of volunteering for service in Dr. Guerrant’s “Soul Winners Society.” Naturally I supposed she (Minnie) would like to know about it. So my first letter said I understood that she was interested in the mountain mission work, and offered to give her information direct from the field. I did not tell her about having her picture in my possession.

Later I learned that when my letter reached her, Miss Hauhart was indignant at my request that she write to a young man she had never met. But her sister (Catherine) from New York happened to be home, and told her she mustn’t take things so seriously. She could reply, have a bit of fun, and break it off whenever she wished. And so began our correspondence.

Exchange of letters with Philadelphia continued. My income was only $25.00 per month, so I had no money for travel. But both of my aunts and Mrs. beck were in sympathy with my desire to meet Miss Hauhart, so they invited her to come to Philadelphia for the Christmas holidays, and also invited me. Mrs. Beck sent me a check for travel expenses. But they did not tell Miss Hauhart.

The visit to Philadelphia was very welcome, but much the greater interest was to meet the lady from Missouri. So I was quite let down to find she had not come. In reply to my letter expressing my disappointment, she wrote: “If I had been all packed up to come, and had learned you were coming I would have unpacked my suitcase at once.” That sounded, oh, so hopeless. But she added: “However, the family has agreed that if you have occasion to pass through St. Louis on your way to Kentucky you might stop over for a day.”

Her suggestion involved 600 miles of extra travel. But I promptly replied that I expected to make occasion to pass through St. Louis. Mrs. Beck was very kind to me. She paid all the expenses of my trip to Philadelphia, then to St. Louis, and back to Kentucky.

So on a fine clear morning in January her brother Edward met me at the train and drove me to the beautiful country home near Manchester, Missouri. I can never forget our first meeting in the living room where Edward introduced me. She was even more beautiful than her picture. But she did not receive me as a long lost brother. I was welcomed in a very formal sort of way. The atmosphere was so cool that she gave me not the slightest encouragement when I asked for a photograph to take with me. It did not seem best to tell her that I had in my suitcase the one Aunt Alice had loaned me until I got one of my own.

Her blind father and her brothers and sisters were friendly. She was the youngest of ten living children. Her father had long been a widower, and his unmarried daughters had helped him keep the home while the children grew up.

Next day I took my departure with a promise to correspond, and an invitation to return in May.

Returning to Kentucky, my next assignment was to Rousseau, on Quicksand Creek, 16 miles from Jackson over a road that was passable only on horseback much of the winter. And there I lived alone in a lonely, roughly built manse next to the church on the mountainside. My work was to preach and teach in a little school and visit the people. Cooking and housekeeping were necessary sidelines. So I had plenty of time that winter to think of how fine it would be to have a helpmeet. We exchanged letters. I wrote her about the daily experiences, including incidents in the community and the school, and telling about the pupils. When she learned that one of the girls was 16 years old, Miss Hauhart took advantage of the opportunity to tease me about her. That gave me a welcome excuse to write that there was only one girl in the world for me. That seemed like real fun until I received the next letter. It was just a line to say that if that was the way I was going to talk she had no date to set for my next visit.

I was heartbroken. I had felt so sure that she was the answer to my prayers of seven years, and here we had suddenly come to the end of the road. I felt desperately lonely. I told the Lord of my great disappointment, but was able to say, “Nevertheless not my will, but Thine, be done.” In spite of my effort to accept whatever might be the Lord’s will, I could not help but go over the problem day and night for the next few days. Then one night I had a ray of hope. After all, Miss Hauhart was a school teacher. And besides, she had started this by teasing me first about that schoolgirl. So I thought I saw a possible way out.

My next letter was to this effect: “You are as school teacher. Now suppose you had made a rule for your pupils against throwing snowballs. And suppose you forgot and yourself threw a snowball at one of the boys, could you blame him very much if he threw one back?” That did it. She relented, and wrote to say that I might come in May as originally planned. So in May I went for a visit of about five days. From my point of view she was the girl whom the Lord had chosen. I loved her, and needed her as a homemaker and helper in my work. I could not afford trips to Missouri. So I felt the time was ripe for a yes or no decision during that visit. It was intolerable to think of the possibility that in my absence someone else might woo and win her just because I had failed to let her know I loved her and wanted her to be my wife.

And so, early in my visit, under the apple tree in that beautiful yard, I brought her my proposal in the form of some verses I had composed for the occasion. I do not know what became of the verses, and I did not know for four days what she would do about my proposal. Then one night in the moonlight, in the open buggy slowly drawn by the old horse called Cleveland, I begged her to kiss me and say “Yes.” At last, and quite reluctantly, she agree to marry me.

Overflowing with happiness, I expected that we could be married in the autumn, and she would join me in my lonely home on the mountainside. But that was not to be. The months between our engagement and marriage were the longest forty months of my life. The long delay was due to the action of the Presbytery, previously mentioned, which resulted in my spending three years as a student at Louisville Seminary. In those days few students were married, and Mignon (the name by which he called her) would not think of marrying me until I had finished the course. So during the years of our engagement I saw her only twice a year, and while the intervals between visits were very busy, they seemed painfully long.⁵

One summer I boarded at a mountain hotel, where one of the fellows brought down the house by telling that in the evening I walked a mountain ridge, looking west, and singing, “I need thee, O, I need thee.”

After hearing the sermon stating that half the world had not even heard the name of Christ, we considered the matter, and decided to volunteer as foreign missionaries. By and by I suggested to Mignon that it might be desirable for her to know some of my friends and teachers before we went abroad as missionaries of the Southern Presbyterian Church. After some persuasion she agreed to the idea, so we were married just before my senior year in Louisville Seminary. The wedding took place in the presence of her father, her four sisters and five brothers, at her country home near Manchester, Missouri, on Sept. 23, 1915. At the time I was supply preacher, and later pastor, of the Berry Boulevard Presbyterian Church, a small congregation in the suburbs of Louisville. When I brought Mignon to them, my people fell in love with her.

For the first of our many homes, I rented two unfurnished rooms on First Street, and made them quite livable by attending auction sales and buying used furniture, which I cleaned up and varnished. She came with me to this pleasant apartment, and we were very happy there, as I completed the last year of my seminary course. As our apartments were near the seminary, Mignon and the wife of another student were able to attend some of the classes that winter. Two years later we were on our way to the Congo.

Since his book relates his life in the Congo, I am not here describing it fully. After the Longeneckers became a part of my life in 1945 I continue with further information as we passed many years in the same family. Perhaps this account of Hershey Longenecker’s life at this point should end with the introduction of his book:

Longenecker, while performing missionary duties in Africa, was captured by cannibals. It is said that he made excellent soup.

That is what Frank Flower, the class prophet, said about me when our class graduated from the Williamson Trade School, near Philadelphia, in 1910. You may find the words on page 56 of “The Mechanic,” our annual for that year. So far as I know not a single one of the other 50 fantastic predictions about our classmates was ever fulfilled even in part.

We never knew very much about other members of the Longenecker family. We have already quoted what Mr. Longenecker wrote about his own grandfather who was a strong spiritual influence on his life, and also about his parents. Dot’s grandmother was a Hershey, evidently of the same family as the chocolate candy manufacturers, but we never received any free chocolate bars! We have already told of Dad Longenecker’ s two aunts (Alice and Anna) in Philadelphia and the great impression they left on his life. He mentions a younger brother, Martin, in his book. We did meet a sister, Anna Mae, several times. Her husband was Ray Honse and they lived in Ohio. She died fairly young, after which he remarried and then died some years later. Apparently she was quite close to Dot’s family, frequently writing, sending gifts, visiting and so on.

Dot’s Uncle Roy Longenecker was a Baptist preacher and also somewhat of a local politician. I only met him once or twice and found him a very interesting person. He was a large affable man, a good “back-slapper,” quite a talker, and with plenty of humor. I recall that he came to the 50th wedding anniversary of Dot’s parents. He remembered Dot in his will, and she received about $555.00 from his estate. But we never met other members of the Longenecker family and have no information about them. In the spring of 1989 when we took a trip to Pennsylvania and visited the city of Hershey and Lancaster County, I looked in the telephone book and found long lists of Hersheys and Longeneckers.

As is evident in his book, Hershey Longenecker was devout, loyal to the Presbyterian Church, devoted to his calling as a missionary, and loving and caring for his family. When he discovered that he had diabetes in the early 1950s, he realized that it would be difficult to continue his work in Africa, and resigned from his mission work there. He then took pastorates in Quitman, Ga. (1951-54), and in Roebuck and Center Point, S.C.(1955-56).

He then retired, and he and Dot’s mother moved to Morristown, Tn. (It was said that they moved there because they saw a sign on the edge of town proclaiming that it was the “cleanest city in the USA.) They found a new sub-division (Oak Hills) and built just about the first house there. Possibly they were attracted to this site because the developer was a Mr. Bible. With his interest in building and skills along that line, naturally Dad supervised the work on that house very carefully. They were extremely happy there and we made many visits which we always enjoyed.

They attended the First Presbyterian Church and where they made many friends. However, because of his deep concern about the course the Presbyterian Church U.S. was taking, in late life Dot’s father withdrew and joined the Presbyterian Church, P.C.A. About a year after Dot’s mother died, he married her oldest niece, Ruth Engler, and we will write more about that later. They had a most happy marriage, and Ruth gave him constant loving care during his last illness, quite certainly prolonging his life considerably because attention.

Most widely known in our family tree was my grandfather George D. Hopper’s brother, Rev. Joseph Hamilton Hopper (1829-1915), known as “Uncle Joe” Hopper. He was born in Lancaster, Ky., July 22, 1829, and in his early years worked as a clerk in a store. He united with the Presbyterian Church in 1843 and was made a deacon there when only sixteen years of age. His religious work dated from that time when he began to organize and conduct Sunday Schools and to do whatever work he felt called upon to do in the Master’s cause. For a brief time he was a member of the First Presbyterian Church, Danville, Ky. In 1851 he became a member of the church at Perryville, Ky.² to which place he had removed. He was ordained as a ruling elder in 1854 at the age of twenty-five, and in the same year was elected clerk of the session and continued in that office until 1875 when increasing duties and frequent absence from home caused him to resign.

“Uncle Joe” never attended college or seminary. On January 13, 1853, he was married to Mary B. Mitchell, daughter of William Mitchell, a wealthy farmer of Boyle County. They made their home in Perryville. Here “Uncle Joe” and “Aunt Mollie” celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary at which time they had with them their eight children and five grand-children. The children were: John Hopper, Margaret Hopper, Fannie Hopper Tucker, Harvey N. Hopper, Dr. Walter O. Hopper, Mrs. W. W. Bruce (Rosa) of Perryville, Mrs. F. E. Montgomery (Emma) of Louisville: and Dr. J. Howerton Hopper of Pleasant Grove, Kentucky.³

While his work carried him over the state and often away from his own fireside, the burden of the duties of the home and family fell on the willing and capable shoulders of “Aunt Mollie,” who was ever a companion of understanding and inspiration to her husband. “Uncle Joe” was an ardent Mason and he stated at one time that he had attended sixty-three elections of officers of his lodge.

About the year 1870 he became Sunday School missionary of the American Sunday School Union, non-sectarian, and took charge of their work in Kentucky until the Synod of Kentucky made him an assistant evangelist for the state. He organized many Sunday Schools in places where the people were without religious services. Many of these Sunday Schools afterwards grew into strong and vigorous churches. By his kindly ways, his cheering words and benevolent disposition he drew to himself hundreds of friends. He had a peculiar charm for children. He drew them about him by the magnetism of his personality. His judging of human nature was almost uncanny at times.

One of the special gifts with which “Uncle Joe” was endowed was the gift of song. Without ostentation, but with an earnestness that was contagious he sang the beautiful songs of Zion and led the congregation in a spirit of real worship in song. His family had many recollections of happy hours spent in choral singing led by their father. In the book “Edward O. Guerrant, Apostle to the Southern Highlands” by Dr. J. Gray McAllister and Grace Owings Guerrant, are the following quotations about “Uncle Joe.”

I was at a meeting in Harrodsburg, soon after Dr. Guerrant had entered upon his work as Synodical Evangelist, and “Uncle Joe” was leading the singing. (P. 92)

A week’s meeting at Combs Ferry furnishes an illustration of the evangelistic work of the year. The “Uncle Joe” spoken of was Mr. Joseph Hopper, a ruling elder in the Perryville Church, song leader in these evangelistic services and ordained to the ministry in 1896 when sixty- seven years of age. The diary records:

Aug. 7, ‘82 . We begin our meeting at Combs Ferry tomorrow on Ky. River. Tired and sore throat. “Uncle Joe” hasn’t come yet. (P. 94).

During August and September I had meetings at our two chapels, Elm Corner and Nonesuch, “Uncle Joe” Hopper and Wm. Crowe, Jr., doing faithful service. Forty-three were added to the two churches. (P. 109)

“Uncle Joe’s” ministry as an evangelist grew out of his interest in Sunday School work. At Sunday School conventions his devotional messages were a blessing to all. As a result he was invited to preach in various churches, and then to hold “protracted meetings” as revivals were often called in those days. As an exponent of “The old time religion, " which was the theme-song of his evangelistic meetings, he went up and down the state, into the cities, out into the country, over the mountains, singing and preaching the Great Evangel.

One important aspect of these meetings was that almost invariably those who made decisions for Christ became life-long staunch church members. In my earlier days as a missionary doing deputation work while on furlough, occasionally an elderly person would note my name and ask, “Could you by any chance be a member of the family of “Uncle Joe” Hopper? I was converted under his ministry in Kentucky!” My father once wrote:

In 1920 I came out as a missionary to Korea, thinking I had left all of “Uncle Joe’s” converts back in America. I had not been here long until in the capital city of Seoul I had the privilege of meeting a young medical missionary of the Southern Methodist Church. Upon his hearing my name he said: “Are you any kin to “Uncle Joe” Hopper? I joined the church under his preaching.”

Apparently his ministry was widespread all over Kentucky and he was one of the best known preachers in the whole area. We have a few records describing his work.

Evangelist Joe Hopper preached for a large congregation at the Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church (Lexington, Ky.) last night. This was his fifth night at that church and the results achieved have been highly satisfactory., The sinners get very little consolation from “Uncle Joe,” who is very free in his condemnation of all forms of wrong doing. His urgent appeals to sinners to change their ways have certainly had great effect in this city. (Newspaper clipping).

There has been placed into my hands a letter written back in the eighties by Dr. Guerrant to “Uncle Joe Hopper” in which he was urging him to hold a meeting in a certain place. He writes: “We want you to hold a big meeting there as soon as you can come. A fine opening for a gracious revival and nobody can help like you. Everybody wants “Uncle Joe.” (Article by my father in the Christian Observer).

In his book, “Kentucky Presbyterians” Dr. Louis B. Weeks of Louisville Presbyterian Seminary writes of the close association of “Uncle Joe” and Dr. E. O. Guerrant (page 130 ff).

In early May, he (Guerrant) went to Salvisa with “Uncle” Joe Hopper, who led singing and helped with baptisms. They found that one elder and a few women members still met for worship occasionally, but no pastor had been there for years. In ten days, “fifty-seven were added to the church.” He located some men who would serve as elders, and he assigned a seminary student to meet with them during the summer. Soon the congregation formed a Sabbath school too.

In late May, Guerrant and Hopper rode to Hazel Green, Wolfe County, and gathered forty-six to form a Presbyterian Church there.

…

A lay leader, who had worked with Guerrant was hired full-time to assist Evans, “Uncle Joe Hopper, a ruling elder at the Perryville Church led singing and Sunday School services when the Presbyterians would first enter a town. In 1884, the Synod commissioned Hopper to oversee the colportage work in rural areas. Subsidized copies of the Bible, of catechisms and Sunday school lessons were sold for the congregations and for devotional reading in homes.

The team of Evans and Hopper was a familiar one in all portions of the state. During 1886, for example, they went together to Mt. Sterling in March, to Somerset in April, where thirty-two joined the church, and to Lawrenceburg and Pisgah in May. They were joined by Guerrant in a successful effort to form a church at Morehead in June. They moved in turn to Franklin, Elkton, and Fredonia. The last-named evangelistic meeting was interesting because at Fredonia the year before they had come at the invitation of a Cumberland Presbyterian congregation. They had reorganized the church and “set it on its feet” as a Cumberland Church. Thus they helped it along as they passed through the area.

…

The work proceeded, and new churches continued to spring up across the state. The “Christian Observer” kept a running record of events. At “Ford” Kentucky, where the Kentucky Central Railroad crossed the Kentucky River, Presbyterians began evangelistic services with Evans, Hopper and Dr. L. H. Blanton leading them. At the end of three weeks a church of forty-five members had been organized, and they had raised $450 toward the construction costs of a building.

Scottsville, in Allen County, organized a church from a group of “five good women and one dear old brother who was acting as ruling elder.” Evans and Hopper worked to help organize what became in short time a congregation of thirty-five. The sermons by the evangelists helped Methodist and Baptist churches in town too, according to the account.

…

Dr. E. T. Thompson, historian of the PCUS described the evangelistic efforts in Kentucky as a “movement which soon spread through the assembly, leading to a new era of missionary advance.”

His public ministry as a missionary and evangelist covered more than forty years, although he was not ordained until March 1896, when Transylvania Presbytery, in view of the evident blessing of God upon his labors as a missionary worker, ordained him to the full work of the ministry. At the time of his ordination he was sixty-seven years old, –and perhaps this is the only instance in the Presbyterian Church when a man received ordination at such an advanced age. At the time, however, he was in vigorous health and in the prime of his useful career. For nearly twenty years after his ordination he continued to preached the unsearchable riches of Christ as opportunity offered. The last regular work of his career was supply the Salvisa Church for several months.

In his eighty-seventh year a signal honor was conferred upon “Uncle Joe” Hopper by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. He went to Louisville to attend the General Assembly as an onlooker. At the meeting were noted evangelists from all over the United States, men of learning who were gifted with the golden tongues of oratory. They were on the program to tell the Assembly their methods of evangelistic work, and gave some interesting and finished talks. Rev. M. V. P. Yeaman introduced “Uncle Joe,” the oldest evangelist present, and suggested that he should tell the Assembly the methods he used in winning people to Christianity. The old man, bent with years, his staff in hand, mounted the rostrum and in the simple language which is all he knows, he told the men of learning his way of winning souls, which was to “preach the simple gospel, as he understood.” His talk was short, but as he finished every man in the audience voluntarily rose to his feet, without a suggestion being made, and stood in respect until “Uncle Joe” stepped down from the platform and took his seat. He was the only man on whom such a signal honor was conferred during the meeting.

On Sunday, March 28, 1915, while seated in his chair in his home at Perryville, Ky., death came suddenly to “Uncle Joe” as he was enjoying the worshipful quiet of the Sabbath day with members of his family. He had a short time before expressed to his family his belief that this was the last Sabbath that he would ever spend with them. The mortal body, emaciated and wearied through long years of active service, was tenderly laid to rest in the cemetery in Perryville. A large assemblage of friends attended the funeral service held in the new building of the Perryville Presbyterian Church on Tuesday morning, March 30. This was the first service held in the main auditorium of the building, in the construction of which “Uncle Joe” had taken great interest. During the closing days of his life he would sit in his home, across the street from the lot on which the church was in process of erection, and would often express the wish that his life would be spared long enough for him to witness the dedication of this beautiful new building. Although the building was not entirely completed, it was possible to hold the funeral services within its walls.

My father had three living brothers and one sister, of whom we have the following records:

William Higgins Hopper

Uncle William (1881-1958) married Ruth Eagleton Terry. Their children were:

• Elizabeth Jane, who married Vincent C. Gilbert. No children.
• Martha Eagleton, who married Allen Tacy. Their children were:
  • Allen Jr.
  • Terry
  • David
• Margaret Ruth, who married Rev. Archibald B. Taylor. They were Presbyterian Missionaries in Japan. Their children were:
  • William
  • John
  • Samuel
• William, Jr. who married Mollie Brown. He was a Presbyterian minister and they were long-time missionaries to Iran, served church positions in the United States, and later were missionaries in Pakistan. Their children were:
  • Lanna
  • Jane
  • Mary Anne

Of the three uncles, I knew Uncle William best. Several times we visited his home in Louisville, Ky. He graduated from Centre College, Danville, Ky. in 1908 and from Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in 1911. He was a member of Parkland Masonic Lodge. He held pastorates at Woodland Presbyterian Church (Louisville, Ky.), Birmingham, Al., at Burnside Ky., and at Flora Heights Presbyterian Church (Louisville, Ky.)

Because of very poor eye-sight which kept him from reading as much as was necessary for his work as a preacher, he became the first treasurer of the “Ministers’ Annuity Fund” of the Southern Presbyterian Church and held this position for twenty years. He must have been very successful in investing the funds of this organization, because yield was always excellent and the fund got off to a good start. His wife, my Aunt Ruth, was extremely active in the Women of the Church organization, reaching top positions in it. As an elder attending the General Assembly of the church, she was one of the original group which proposed COCU (Committee on Church Union). Uncle William died Jan. 29, 1990.

Walter Owsley Hopper

Uncle Walter (1883-1969) married Garnett Robinson. Their children were:

• Walter, Jr. who died as a child.
• Virginia Reed who married George Connerat. Their children were:
  • George
  • Robin

George Dunlap Hopper¹

Uncle George who first married Minnie Parker Durham who died in 1932. They had one daughter:

• Virginia Lee

He then married Sue Hayes, who died in 1969, in Asheville, N.C.

I did know Uncle George better. When we traveled around the world in 1935, he met us a Marseilles, France, and sailed with us to Tangiers where he was a U.S. Consul. When I finished high school and came to the States to college, I spent a night or so with him in Winnipeg, Canada where he was consul. Later, after he married Aunt Sue (his second wife) whom he had met in Canada, they lived in Asheville, N.C. in a house on top of Beaucatcher Mountain and we visited them a number of times there. During his last illness he was in a rest home there where we saw him shortly before his death.

Margaret Higgins Hopper

Aunt Margaret was, of course, the closest of Father’s siblings. Because she lived near my parents in Mokpo, Korea, and later in Montreat, N.C. and finally at the Presbyterian Home in High Point, N.C., we were in close contact all along. Most of my recollections of her are recorded later in these accounts. I have been able to find a few bits of information about her early life, before she came to the mission field.

I have an affidavit dated May 20, 1965 in Montreat, N.C. signed by Aunt Margaret affirming that Father was born June 1, 1892 in Stanford, Ky. in the home of her father, Mr. George D. Hopper, Sr. Evidently my Father had lost his birth certificate making this affidavit necessary. It concludes with this statement:

I was six years of age at the time. I clearly remember that the attending physician came out on the porch where I was and said to me, ‘I have brought you a baby brother.’

For some reason, we have very limited information about her college or other training or details about what she had been doing during her earlier life. According to records at Stonewall Jackson Institute, she attended “[Stanford Female College](http://explorekyhistory.ky.gov/items/show/771" from 1900-1904 and graduated with an AB in English. Other records indicate that she attended “[Sayre College](Sayre College)” in Lexington, Ky. and immediately afterwards taught in the Stanford high school. She attended the College of Music in Cincinnati in 1908, taught high school in Stanford 1909-1941, spent the summer of 1912 at Chattauqua in New York, was at the University of Tennessee 1914-1915, and taught English at the Stonewall Jackson Institute in Bristol, TN. 1915-1917.

Like my parents she studied at White’s Bible School in New York at least some before going to Korea. A small clipping indicates that at the time she left for Korea she was principal of Sayre College. She was a member of the Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church of Lexington. She sailed to Korea on April 15th, 1922, when she would have been just under 36 years old.²

Her entire career in Korea was spent in Mokpo, where she was principal of the Chung-myung school for girls. Her small house was practically in the corner of our yard, and one end of a one-story long girls’ dormitory connected with her house. As our only real aunt nearby she was naturally our favorite aunt and was always good to us. Once she lost the diamond out of a ring and I was able to find it in a corner of the steps where it had been swept with the dust pan hiding the trash. One time it was good that somebody did not finish the job. She was always very frugal and by the time she died had considerable wealth which had accumulated from a small inheritance which had been managed by her brother William.

Shortly before returning after furlough to Korea in 1936, I went with Father to Stanford, Ky. Here on Aug. 2, the Presbyterian Church celebrated “Hopper Day in Stanford.” As I recall Father, Uncle William, Uncle Walter, and Aunt Margaret were all present (Uncle George could not come.) The three uncles were sitting in the front pew with backs to the congregation, and it was amusing to note that all three were completely (and similarly) bald. Various parts of the services that Sunday morning and evening were led by the members of the Hopper family.

Explore all Hopper family Kentucky locations on our interactive map

On Oct. 24, 1991, Dr. Nam Y. Park paid us a good visit in Montreat. He is an elder of the First Presbyterian Church of Houston, Texas, and currently a member of the board of Montreat-Anderson College. I had previously met him when speaking at his church in Houston.

We were fascinated with the story Dr. Park had of his early life. He was born in far north-eastern Korea but as a boy his family came to Mokpo. His father had made quite a fortune in rice, and operated a large business in Mokpo. “Nam” remembers that the mission compound was a beautiful place with trees and flowers, and he liked to climb over the fence and go there to paint pictures. With a laugh he said he remembered my father running him off several times. (I tried to explain that this was because the missionaries had trouble keeping hordes of such invaders from taking over the property.)

This was during the time of the Japanese occupation and he says that the Japanese population of Mokpo was about 50%. The Japanese established some kind of special high school there for their own brightest students, and decided to accept a few select Koreans as well and “Nam” was one chosen… both because he was a bright boy and because his father was a prosperous business man. No doubt their idea was to train a few Koreans to be used in high positions in their government.

The missionaries were evacuated from Korea in the fall of 1940. When “Nam” later was in this special high school, the principal (a Japanese, of course) was living in my parent’s house. He brought “Nam” and other students there to work in the vegetable gardens in the yards around the house about once a week. On several occasions, however, “Nam” was among those ordered to clean the house. Once while doing so, he happened to lean his hand against a wall and it suddenly gave in and a pile of books came tumbling out. He was astonished and hastily picked up a book entitled “Modern Education in Korea” which he slipped inside his clothing and took home.

I had never heard that my parents tried to hide anything in this way, and it could have been done by servants after they evacuated. Anyhow, “Nam” vowed to return this book to the Hopper family and brought it to America (where he is now a micro-paleontologist with an oil firm) . However, it seems to have been mislaid and he has not yet brought it to me.

In 1547, a French fleet besieged St. Andrews Castle where Knox and other protestants resided. On July 31, 1547, the castle was captured by the French. Knox and others were forced to become galley slaves on French ships.

Knox would eventually escaped enslavement and, in 1556, took refuge in the Swiss town of Geneva where he pastored a small church of English-speaking protestant refugees. In Geneva, Knox fellowshipped with the French reformer John Calvin, who was just a few years older than Knox.

The reformation in Scotland continued in Knox’s absence. In March of 1557, five Scottish nobles wrote to Knox asking him to return to Scotland.

In The Life of John Knox, Thomas M’Crie writes,

James Syme, who had been his host, at Edinburg, and James Barron, arrived at Geneva, with a letter from the earl of Glencairn, the lords Lorn, Erskine, and James Stewart, informing him, that those who had professed the Reformed doctrine, remained steadfast; that his adversaries were daily lose credit to the nation, and that those who possessed the supreme authority, although they had not yet declared themselves friendly, still refrained from persecution; and inviting him in their own name, and in that of their brethren, to return to Scotland, where he would find them all ready to receive him, and to spend their lives and fortunes in advancing the cause which they had espoused.

With the blessing of John Calvin and his congregation, John Knox returned to his homeland in May of 1559.

In August, the Scottish Parliament met to address the issue of religious reform. They commissioned the Six Johns to write a Confession of Faith, and they severed the authority of the Pope over the Scottish churches. Knox and other ministers were given the authority to organize the Scottish reformed church. The Johns then prepared a book of church order called the First Book of Discipline.

On December 20, 1560, the Church of Scotland convened its first general assembly with forty commissioners from across the nation. Only six of these commissioners were ministers¹; the others were lay elders.

Edinburgh was represented by John Knox (minister), James Barron, and Edward Hope.² This was the same Barron who carried a letter from Scotland requesting Knox return to Scotland. Barron was Dean of the Guild in Scotland, a role which included handling trade disputes and overseeing town buildings. Barron and Hope were lay leaders in the new church; in modern presbyterian terminology, they were ruling elders.

Despite these reforms, religious turmoil continued in England and Scotland. In the 1600s, many Scottish Presbyterians would flee to King James’³ Plantation of Ulster in Northern Ireland.

One of these family was that of William Barron, who, according to family lore, is a direct descendant of James Barron, the colleague of John Knox. In 1734, Archibald Alexander Barron was born to William in Carrickfergus, Ireland. Archibald would immigrate to Pennsylvania in 1769 and would follow the Great Wagon Road to York County, South Carolina. The Barrons of York County would end up members of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church,⁴ which formed from offshoots of the Church of Scotland.

In the late 1910s, Archibald great-great granddaughter Annis Estelle Barron (1893-1979) traveled to New York City to attend the Bible Teachers’ Training School in preparation to serve the United Presbyterian Mission in Egypt. There she met Joseph Hopper of central Kentucky. Meeting Joseph interrupted Annis’ plans; Joseph and Annis married on December 18, 1919 and, three months later, moved to Mokpo, Korea where they would serve as PCUS missionaries for 34 years. Joseph and Annis’ son Joseph Barron Hopper, my grandfather, would return to Korea with his wife Dot and serve the Lord for 38 years.

History forgets ruling elders. Yet without the faithful service of James Barron, there may have been no one to summon Knox back to Geneva. Without John Knox’s return to Scotland, we may not have the gospel-preaching presbyterian churches that exist around the world today. I thank God for the forgotten faithfulness of my ancestors.

It is worth while to be a Shorter Catechism boy. They grow to be men. And better than that, they are exceedingly apt to grow to be men of God. So apt, that we cannot afford to have them miss the chance of it. ‘Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.’

Warfield knew that learning the Shorter Catechism wasn’t easy. “The Shorter Catechism is, perhaps, not very easy to learn. And very certainly it will not teach itself. Its framers were less careful to make it easy than to make it good.” He goes on:

We think, nevertheless, that the acquisition of arithmetic, grammar and reading is worth the pains its costs the teacher to teach, and the pain it costs the learner to learn them. Do we not think the acquisition of the grounds of religion worth some effort, and even, if need be, some tears?

Tim Challies’ recent tweet got me thinking about examples of these shorter catechism boys.

As I research “Christian Men and Their Godly Moms,” time and time again I read of mothers training their sons in The Shorter Catechism. — @challies

Here are five examples: (1) John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, (2) Charles Hodge, professor of thousands of pastors, (3) B. B. Warfield, great defender of biblical Christianity, (4) J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Seminary (5) my grandfather Joe Hopper, missionary church planter in rural Korea.

John Newton (1725–1807)

John Newton, the author of Amazing Grace and “perhaps the greatest pastoral letter-writer of all time” (J.I. Packer), wrote of his upbringing:

My mother was a Dissenter, a pious woman, and a member of the late Dr. Jenning’s church. She was of a weak, consumptive habit, and loved retirement; and as I was her only child, she made it the chief business and pleasure of her life to instruct me, and bring me up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Have been told that from my birth she had, in her mind, devoted me to the ministry; and that, had she lived till I was of a proper age, I was to have been sent to St. Andrews, in Scotland, to be educated. But the Lord had appointed otherwise.

I was rather of a sedentary turn, not active and playful, as boys commonly are, but seemed as willing to learn as my mother was to teach me. I had some capacity, and a retentive memory. When I was 4 years old, I could read (hard names excepted) as well as I can now; and could likewise repeat the answers to the questions in the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, with the proofs, and all Dr. Watt’s smaller Catechisms, and his Children’s Hymns.

Newton’s pastoral theology was greatly shaped by his rich heritage. Pastor Tim Keller accurately describes Newton’s rich letters:

Newton was able to take the great theological doctrines of the faith and apply them to the needs of friends, parishioners, even strangers who wrote for advice. In his letters he is often blunt, yet always tender. He is remarkably humble and open about his own flaws, but never in a cloying or self-absorbed manner. He is therefore able to point others to the grace of Christ on which he himself clearly depends

Charles Hodge (1797–1878)

Charles Hodge taught at Princeton Seminary from 1820 to 1878. During that time, around 3,000 men who would go on to become gospel ministers sat under his instruction. Countless more have benefited from his magisterial 3 volume Systematic Theology.

The great love for Christ and His Word that shaped Hodge’s life and teaching started long before his days at Princeton. He would write, “To our mother, my brother and myself, under God owe absolutely everything. To us she devoted her life. For us she prayed, labored, and suffered. Our mother was a Christian … [she] carefully drilled us in the Westminster Confession.”²

Hodge biographer Paul Gutjahr wrote,³

Learning and reciting the catechism was an intensely religious ordeal, but those who had mastered it in their youth often proudly recited its contents well into old age. It was a highly formalized and structured way of teaching that Presbyterians made great use of throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Hodge learned his lessons well, and the doctrines he memorized as a boy provided the foundation for the theological views he held his entire life.

Stuart Robinson (1814–1881)

In Southern Presbyterian leaders, Henry White writes of Stuart Robinson:

Among the Scots of North Ireland, in the month of November, 1814, Stuart Robinson was born. Soon after this event, his father, a linen merchant, brought the family across the Atlantic and established a home in the lower part of the Valley of Virginia. There, not far from the Potomac River, Stuart’s boyhood was spent.

Every Sunday for several years he walked six miles to Falling Water Church to receive instruction in the Sunday-school which his own mother organized and there to listen to the words of grace that fell from the lips of the pastor, one of the most effective preachers of that day, John Blair Hoge. During the week, under the mother’s guidance, he stored up in his memory the words of the catechism and various selections from the Bible.

Robinson would go on to pastor many churches, including Second Presbyterian Church in Louisville and Central Presbyterian Church in Maryland; he trained men for gospel ministry at Danville Theological Seminary in Kentucky. In 1869, he would serve as moderator of the Presbyterian Church in the United States General Assembly. His lasting legacy is in his writings. The Church of God as an Essential Element of the Gospel by Stuart Robinson articulately defends the doctrine of the church as an outworking of Jesus Christ’s kingship over his people. His Discourses of Redemption outline the story of God’s covenants with His people in a proto-Vossian fashion.

B.B. Warfield (1851–1921)

B.B. Warfield would teach at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He was the last great theologian at Princeton before its decline into theological liberalism. R.C. Sproul has said that “Warfield is second only to Jonathan Edwards as America’s greatest theologian.”

Like these other men, Warfield’s theological formation started in his home. Fred Zaspel quotes Warfield’s younger brother Ethelbert:

Youthful objects had little effect in a household where the shorter catechism was ordinarily completed in the sixth year, followed at once by the proofs from the Scriptures, and then by the larger catechism, with an appropriate amount of Scripture memorized in regular course each Sabbath afternoon.

Warfield would go on to devote his life to defending those Scriptures and the Christ of Scripture.

J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937)

In the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of the early 20th century, Machen was a stalwart defender of the truth. Late in his life, Machen said that from his parents he “learned what Christianity is and how it differs from certain modern substitutes.”⁴

Of his education he wrote:

In Baltimore I attended a good private school. It was purely secular; and in it I learned nothing about the Bible or the great things of our Christian faith. But I did not need to learn about those things in any school; for I learned them from my mother at home. That was the best school of all; and in it, without any merit of my own, I will venture to say that I had acquired a better knowledge of the contents of the Bible at twelve years of age than is possessed by many theological students of the present day. The Shorter Catechism was not omitted. I repeated it perfectly, questions and answers, at a very tender age; and the divine revelation of which it is so glorious a summary was stored up in my mind and heart.⁴

In his memoir of Machen, Ned Stonehouse quotes from a letter young Machen wrote to his mother while she was away⁵:

Arly [brother Arthur] desected a beetle, and let me see him do it, and I like it verry much. I have finished Mathu, and nearly finished Mark, and then I am going to begin at the very beginning of the whole bible. Any said over his cattercisum, and made only one mistake. It seems to me that on sunday I can never get a nuf off my cattercisum. I like it so much and Poply always heres me on sunday, and some tims in the week.

You know that little book I told you about in my other letter, and read sum in efry morning, and I learn one of the little verses by hart, and then I find out where they are in the bible, and Carry looks them out in the revised vershun and I like it verry much and do it very often. It seems to me that sundays get nicer and nicer becous Poply reads me in pilgrime progres and hears me my cattercisum, and I like it very much. I like to play hook and lader verry much and bild up houses and play that they gech on fire and I like it verry much and do it verry much. I read in that little book so much that I forget to tar of my calnder I like it so much.

Stonehouse concluded⁵:

In mature life Machen often paid tribute to the instruction in the Bible that he received at his mother’s knee. At twelve years of age his knowledge of its contents, including the names and character of all the kings of Israel and Judah, he later observed, surpassed that of the average theological student of his day. There was, moreover, careful instruction in the Westminster Shorter Catechism and a commitment to memory of questions and answers. To this he later attributed, to a significant degree, his love of the noble tradition of the Reformed Faith as expressed in its classic symbols as over against the meager skeletal creeds of a mere “Fundamentalism.”

Joseph Hopper (1921–1992)

My grandfather served the Lord as a PCUS missionary to Korea for 38 years (1948-1986). He was reared a missionary kid in Korea where his also served the PCUS. In his memoir, he recounts his parents’ faithful instruction in the home:

We always had daily prayers in our home. They were usually held at the breakfast table with read of a chapter of Hubert’s Bible Story Book and prayer. If Father was home, he was the leader, but when he was away, Mother took his place. When morning school work began, we were required to memorized some verses of Scripture and the answers in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I still have the diploma given by the Christian Observer for reciting the Shorter Catechism in April 1932 when I was less than eleven years old. As was the custom, I wrote a letter to the editor which was printed, as follows:

Dear Mr. Converse:

I am a boy of eleven years old. I have recited the Shorter Catechism to my mother. Please put my name on the Roll of Honor and send me a diploma. Father is a missionary in Korea. …

Your little friend, Joseph Barron Hopper

My great grandmother was reared in a Associate Reformed Presbyterian home outside of Rock Hill, SC. My grandfather wrote specifically of his mother’s instruction:

She was a thorough and strict teacher but a good one… and along with the three “Rs” we were taught the Bible from beginning to end, memorizing many chapters, and also the Westminster Shorter catechism… by far the best theological training I ever received.

At age 12, my grandfather went before the provisional session (elder board) of missionaries to be examined for communicant membership:

My two-hour examination for church membership was held in the Reynolds’ cabin which was next door to ours. The “session” was composed of Dr. W D. Reynolds, Th.D, Dr. S. Dwight Winn, Th.D, Dr. Joseph Hopper, Th.D., and Rev. E. T Boyer. I replied to many of the questions with the appropriate answer from the Shorter Catechism, which pleased these church fathers immensely. Afterwards Father remarked to me, “Joe, I have seen many a candidate for the ministry ordained with less examination than you received!”

I thank God for my great-grandparents’ faithfulness. My grandfather and grandmother went on to raise four children in the Lord who would raise their own children in the Lord.

Do you know of any other great Shorter Catechism boys or girls? Please share about them in a comment below.

This petition was written in his own blood by a high school boy to Rev. Joe B. Hopper in 1952. In it he pleads to be allowed to enter the Bible Institute in Chonju. Funds were fund to help him enter the Institute. The young man is now an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church of Korea.

My grandparents had left Korea in 1950 as the war was starting. My grandfather returned to Chonju alone in the fall of 1951. This petition was written during the stalemate before the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed.

If anyone would like to translate the Korean and email it to me, I would happily post it.

Christianity in Conflict

by J. Gresham Machen

An account of personal experiences may be interesting for one or two reasons: (1) because the writer is in some way remarkable; (2) because, not being at all remarkable, he may be able to set forth in a concrete way the experience of a considerable body of men. It is for the latter reason, if at all, that the present little sketch may justify its place in the volume of which it is to form a part. I have been asked to contribute to the volume, I suppose, in order that I may show by the example of my own very imperfect, but for that reason all the more typical, experience how it is that a considerable number of persons have been led to resist the current of the age and to hold with mind and heart to that religion of supernatural redemption which has always hitherto been known as Christianity.

In the pursuance of this task, however, I shall not seek to distinguish those elements in my experience which are peculiar from those which I share with others, but shall simply set forth certain observations of mine in the concrete, in the hope that here and there they may by way of example shed some light upon something less unimportant than they are in themselves. It seems to me, even with that explanation, to be rather a presumptuous undertaking; but the responsibility is the Editor’s, not mine.

If the question be asked how it has come about that contrary to the majority of the men of our day I am a believer in the truth of the Bible and an adherent of the redemptive religion which the Bible presents, the answer will be found, to a far greater extent than in any other one place, in the home in Baltimore in which, in company with my brothers, Arthur W. Machen, Jr. and Thomas Machen, I was brought up. My father, who died in 1915 at the age of eighty-eight, and my mother, who died in 1931 at the age of eighty-two, were both Christians; from them I learned what Christianity is and how it differs from certain modern substitutes. I also learned that Christian conviction can go hand in hand with a broad outlook upon life and with the pursuit of learning.

My father was a lawyer, whose practice had been one of the best in the State of Maryland. But the success which he attained at the bar did not serve in the slightest to make him narrow in his interests. All his life he was a tremendous reader, and reading to him was never a task. I suppose it never occurred to him to read merely from a sense of duty; he read because he loved to read. He would probably have been greatly amused if anyone had called him a “scholar”; yet his knowledge of Latin and Greek and English and French literature (to say nothing of Italian, which he took up for the fun of it when he was well over eighty and was thus in a period of life which in other men might be regarded as old age) would put our professional scholars to shame.

With his knowledge of literature there went a keen appreciation of beauty in other fields—an appreciation which both my brothers have inherited. One of my father’s most marked characteristics was his desire to have contact with the very best. The second-best always left him dissatisfied; and so the editions of the English classics, for example, that found place in his library were always carefully chosen. As I think of them, I am filled with renewed dismay by the provision of the Vestal Copyright Bill, nearly made a law in the last Congress, which would erect a Chinese wall of exclusion around our “many things that are finest and most beautiful in the art of the printing and binding of books.

My father’s special “hobby” was the study and collection of early editions—particularly fifteenth-century editions of the Greek and Latin classics. Some fine old books were handed down to him from his father’s home in Virginia, but others he acquired in the latter part of his long life. His modest means did not suffice, of course, for wholesale acquisitions, but he did try to pick up here and there really good examples of the work of the famous early printers. He was little interested in imperfect copies; everything that he secured was certain to be the very best. I can hardly think of his love of old books as a “hobby”; it was so utterly spontaneous and devoid of self-consciousness. He loved the beautiful form of the old books, as he loved their contents; and the acquisition of every book on his shelves was a true expression of that love.

He was a profoundly Christian man, who had read widely and meditated earnestly upon the really great things of our holy Faith. His Christian experience was not of the emotional or pietistical type, but was a quiet stream whose waters ran deep. He did not adopt that “Touch not, taste not, handle not” attitude toward the good things or the wonders of God’s world which too often today causes earnest Christian people to consecrate to God only an impoverished man, but in his case true learning and true piety went hand in hand. Every Sunday morning and Sunday night, and on Wednesday night, he was in his place in Church, and a similar faithfulness characterized all his service as an elder in the Presbyterian Church. At that time he Protestant churches had not yet become political lobbies, and Presbyterian elders were chosen not because they were “outstanding men [or women] in the community,” but because they were men of God. I love to think of that old Presbyterian session in the Franklin Street Presbyterian Church of Baltimore.

It is a refreshing memory in these days of ruthless and heartless machinery in the Church. God grant that the memory may some day become actuality again and that the old Christian virtues may be revived!

Even stronger was the influence of my mother. Like my father, she was an exceedingly wide reader; her book on The Bible in Browning is only one gleaning from a very rich field. Her most marked intellectual characteristic, perhaps, was the catholicity of her tastes. She loved poetry with a deep and discriminating love, but she loved with equal ardor the wonders and beauties of nature. Long before the days of “Outlines of Science” and “Outlines” of everything else, she was a student of botany and also a student of the stars in their courses. I shall never forget the eager delight with which she used to stand with me, when I was very young, upon a ridge in the White Mountains and watch the long shadows creep upward upon the opposite heights. She loved nature in its more majestic aspects, and she also loved the infinite sweetness of the woods and fields. I suppose it is from her that I learned to escape sometimes from the heartless machinery of the world, and the equally heartless machinery, alas, of a church organization nominally dedicated to Christ, and refresh my soul with the friendliness of the hills. But beneath my mother’s love of nature and beneath her love of poetry that was inextricably intertwined with that other love, there lay her profound reverence for the Author of all beauty and all truth. To her God was all and in all, and her access to God she found only through the new and living way that the Scriptures point out. I do not see how anyone could know my mother well without being forever sure that whatever else there may be in Christianity the real heart of Christianity is found in the atoning death of Christ. I am glad that in my very early youth I visited my grandfather’s home in Macon, Georgia, where my mother was brought up. Its fragrance and its spaciousness and “simplicity were typical of a by-gone age, with the passing of which I am convinced that something precious has departed from human life. In both my father and my mother, and their associates whom I saw from time to time, I caught a glimpse of a courtlier, richer life, and a broader culture than that which dominates the metallic age in which we are living now. It is a vision that I can never forget. I cannot, indeed, hope to emulate the breadth of education attained by both my parents and successfully emulated especially by my older brother; my own efforts seem utterly puny when compared with such true and spontaneous learning as that. But at least I am glad I have had the vision. It has taught me at least that there are things in heaven and earth never dreamed of in our mechanistic world. Some day there may be a true revival of learning, to take the place of the narrowness of our age; and with that revival of learning there may come, as in the sixteenth century, a rediscovery of the gospel of Christ.

In Baltimore I attended a good private school. It was purely secular; and in it I learned nothing about the Bible or the great things of our Christian faith. But I did not need to learn about those things in any school; for I learned them from my mother at home. That was the best school of all; and in it, without any merit of my own, I will venture to say that I had acquired a better knowledge of the contents of the Bible at twelve years of age than is possessed by many theological students of the present day. The Shorter Catechism was not omitted. I repeated it perfectly, questions and answers, at a very tender age; and the divine revelation of which it is so glorious a summary was stored up in my mind and heart. When a man has once come into sympathetic contact with that noble tradition of the Reformed Faith, he will never readily be satisfied with a mere “Fundamentalism” that seeks in some hasty modern statement a greatest common measure between men of different creeds. Rather will he strive always to stand in the great central current of the Church’s life that has come down to us through Augustine and Calvin to the standards of the Reformed Faith.

My mother did more for me than impart a knowledge of the Bible and of the Faith of our Church. She also helped me in my doubts. Having passed through intellectual struggle herself, having face bravely from her youth on the objections to the truth of the Christian religion, she was able to help those who had doubts. And of doubts, I certainly had no lack. In this connection, I cannot forbear to speak also of my older brother, Arthur W. Machen, Jr., and of my cousin, LeRoy Gresham, both of whom I greatly admired. A man is in a sad case if he must fight the battle of faith and unbelief entirely alone. In most instances, God uses the help and example of older and wiser men and women to bring him safely through.

When I was seventeen years of age, I entered the Johns Hopkins University as an undergraduate student, and in 1901 I received my Bachelor of Arts degree. At that time, the initial impulse of the Johns Hopkins, which had made such a profound impression upon the entire intellectual life of our country, had not yet run its course. Daniel Coit Gilman, the first president, was still in office; and of the famous original faculty, Remsen, Rowland and Gildersleeve still occupied their chairs. Even an undergraduate could appreciate to some extent the stimulus of such an environment; and in my case the stimulus was enormously increased when, in the autumn of 1901, I entered as a graduate student into the Greek seminar (or, as it was better called, the Greek seminary) of Gildersleeve himself.

Gildersleeve may perhaps be regarded as the most notable classical scholar that America has yet produced. In him was found a rare combination of accurate philological learning with something akin, at least, to literary genius. I shall never forget the hours that I spent with the little “company of students that gathered around the table in his seminary room. There were no undergraduates in that company and no candidates for the Master of Arts degree. They were all men who intended to make the teaching of language their life work and who had altogether transcended the school-boy or undergraduate point of view. Never was there an environment where earnest study was had in more honor than in that group of students of Latin and Greek under Gildersleeve and C.W.E. Miller and Kirby Smith. In such a company Gildersleeve would let himself go. With a magisterial disregard of anything like system, he started with Greek syntax and then allowed his thought to range over the literature of the world. His successor, C.W.E. Miller, has preserved much of the work of the great teacher in the splendidly edited volume, Selections from the Brief Mention of Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve; but particularly fortunate were we who actually sat in the seats of the learners in that class-room.

I shall always be glad that I obtained contact with the rigidly scientific method and with the contempt for mere clap-trap which characterized the Johns Hopkins University in its best days. But as my first year of graduate study drew to its close the thought did occur to me (more or less vaguely, perhaps, at the time) that that method might be applied with even greater advantage to a subject-matter different from that which engaged our attention there. The year 1901-1902 was the Plato year in the cycle that governed the choice of studies in Gildersleeve’s seminary; and in addition to our wider reading we were each assigned brief passages from Plato’s dialogues for detailed discussion. It was a useful exercise. But I could not help reflecting that there are certain other ancient Greek books whose detailed interpretation is of profound interest not merely to scholars or philosophers but to the rank and file of mankind. Could I aspire to devote my life to that far more important field?

I was still undecided when the academic year came to an end, and during part of the summer continued my Greek studies at the University of Chicago. I took only one course. It was a course in Pindar under Paul Shorey, and it brought plenty of hard work as well as contact with another true man of letters in a philological chair. A student who can count both Gildersleeve and Shorey among his teachers—even for brief periods of time—is fortunate indeed. But when the summer was over, I turned at last to the field upon which I had for some time been casting longing eyes. How much more worth while it is, if one is to apply modern scientific methods of research to ancient books, to apply them to those books whose every word is of an importance to humanity with which the importance even of Homer and Plato can never for one moment be compared!

So I entered Princeton Theological Seminary in the autumn of 1902. In doing so, I was encouraged particularly by Francis L. Patton, who was just coming to the presidency of the seminary. He had been a guest repeatedly at my father’s home in Baltimore. I admired him then greatly, and I came afterwards to love him with all my heart. With infinite patience he brought me through my doubts and helped me in my difficulties. Never did a doubter and a struggler have a better friend than I had in this wonderfully eloquent and brilliant man. From the start, when I went to Princeton, I was impressed by William P. Armstrong, the head of the New Testament department, who later became my most intimate friend. I had been in contact, at the Johns Hopkins University, with modern scientific method applied to the study of ancient books. That same method was applied by Armstrong to the New Testament. No student in his classroom who knew anything whatever of modern methods of philological and historical research could help seeing that he was a modern university man of the very highest type.

“It seemed significant to me then, as it seems today, that, applying such modern methods of criticism to the New Testament, he could arrive at a result confirmatory, and not destructive, of the trustworthiness of the New Testament books. One of Armstrong’s strongest points is that he combines detailed knowledge of critical and historical questions with an understanding of great underlying principles. His wide reading in philosophy enables him to show the connection between schools of New Testament criticism and various schools of modern philosophy; but, above all, he is able to exhibit the connection between the supernaturalistic view of the New Testament and the theistic view of God and the world upon which the Christian religion depends. I think that this union between detailed scholarship and an understanding of great principles was characteristic of the old Princeton Seminary.¹ Princeton differed from other seats of conservative scholarship in that more clearly than was done elsewhere it found the centre of the curriculum in the department of systematic theology. For my part, I have always regarded the study of the New Testament, to which I have given my life, as ancillary to that other department. New Testament study has its own methods, indeed; but ultimately its aim should be to aid in the establishment of that system of doctrine that the Scriptures contain. At Princeton the chair of systematic theology was occupied by a man who effected a personal, as well as a logical union between that department and the departments devoted to Biblical research. B.B. Warfield had won his reputation as a New Testament scholar. In the field of textual criticism he had been among the first to recognize the epoch-making importance of the labors of Dr. Armstrong has remained, indeed, at the new Princeton Seminary, after the recent reorganization, but he certainly belongs spiritually to the old, and it is extremely unlikely that scholars of his type will be added to the faculty of the institution henceforth.

Westcott and Hort, and he had supplemented those labors by independent research. In New Testament exegesis his contributions were highly valued in Great Britain as well as in America. Then, with his coming to Princeton, he turned to the field of systematic theology, bringing to that field the broad exegetical and critical foundation without which the systematic theologian is hampered at every turn. Warfield became one of the greatest authorities in the history of doctrine; and it may certainly be said, in general, that he had a truly encyclopædic mind. When I was a student at Princeton I admired Warfield, as we all did; but I was far from understanding fully his greatness both as a scholar and as a thinker. I was still playing with the notion that a minimizing apologetic may serve the needs of the Church, and that we may perhaps fall back upon a Biblical Christianity which relinquishes the real or supposed rigidities of the Reformed system. Subsequent investigation and meditation have shown me, as over against such youthful folly, that Warfield was entirely right; I have come to see with greater and greater clearness that consistent Christianity is the easiest Christianity to defend, and that consistent Christianity—the only thoroughly Biblical Christianity—is found in the Reformed Faith. In general, I need only to think of my own immaturity when I was a student at Princeton in order to be convinced that theological students are far from being so well qualified in the field of theological encylopædia as they sometimes think they are. An educational institution, I am convinced, should present its curriculum with a certain clear-cut, though sympathetic, decisiveness. If it is governed by its students or its alumni or the donors of its funds, it might just as well close its doors. There is not space for me to speak of the rest of the old Princeton Seminary faculty. From every one of them I obtained something distinctive and something of real value. I also profited very greatly by the courses in the “history of modern philosophy which I pursued at Princeton University under A.T. Ormond. How Ralph Barton Perry can speak of Ormond as “ponderous, high-minded, and unintelligible”² is a complete mystery to me, unless the explanation is found in the fact that this writer refers to his studies at Princeton as belonging to his “prenatal” experience in philosophy. As a matter of fact, anything more utterly limpid and more broadly illuminating than Ormond’s lectures it would be difficult to conceive. On my graduation from Princeton Seminary in the spring of 1905, I went to Germany, having also spent the previous summer there. In Germany I obtained practically no contact with conservative scholarship, but listened almost exclusively to those who represented the dominant naturalistic point of view. During the winter semester 1905-1906, I was a student at Marburg. Since I was intending to be a teacher of the New Testament, I confined myself for the most part to New Testament courses. But I did hear the lectures on systematic theology by W. Herrmann, and I have always rejoiced greatly that I had that privilege. In one’s contact with any great movement, it has always seemed to me important to attend to its best, and not merely to its worst, representatives; and Herrmann certainly represented Ritschlianism at its best. He was a man, moreover, who could never fully be understood or appreciated through his books alone. Only personal contact could reveal the contagious earnestness, the deep religious feeling, of the man, I felt, as I sat in that class-room, that it was the centre of world-wide influence, a place from which a great current went forth, for good or ill, into the whole life of mankind. That current has now run its course. Certainly the power of Ritschlianism is diminishing. Its popular phrases, used often by men who know little of their origin, are still heard in the pulpits of America; but in those circles whence come the real springs of influence the Ritschlian solution of our religious difficulties has already had its day. I was not insensible of the attractiveness of that solution when I sat in Herrmann’s classroom, and I am not insensible of it now. How happy we might seem to be if we could only avoid the debate about the existence of a personal God—if we could only relegate all that to a sphere of metaphysics with which the Christian man need have nothing to do! What a world of trouble it would save us if we could only make ourselves independent of the findings of detailed historical research and find in the Gospel picture of the moral life of Jesus all that we need to give us the value of God! But in reality this solution has proved to be utterly fallacious. It is fallacious for at least two reasons.

In the first place, the religious experience that it seeks to conserve is not really independent of apologetic debate. The picture of “the Liberal Jesus,” which called forth Herrmann’s unbounded reverence—the picture which Harnack presented in What is Christianity? and which was set forth in many other learned and popular books—has by no means escaped criticism. Radicals have denied its historicity; “consistent eschatologists” have pointed out in the sources elements which contradict it at its root. The picture is faulty, moreover, in itself. The Ritschlians thought that the moral life of Jesus—their Jesus, reconstructed by their particular type of naturalistic criticism of the Gospels—was capable of calling forth mankind’s unbounded reverence, was capable of having for all mankind the value of God. But, alas, that is far from being the case. The “Liberal” or Ritschlian Jesus has in His Messianic consciousness a moral contradiction at the very centre of His being; such a Jesus is very far indeed from being a perfect moral ideal, to say nothing of being worthy to assume the place in human affection and reverence that used to be assumed by the Creator of heaven and earth.

A second reason why the Ritschlian solution of our apologetic difficulties has failed is that the type of religious experience which it endeavors to conserve is hardly true Christian experience at all. W. Herrmann was a deeply religious man; no one who came into contact with him can doubt that. But was the religion of which he was so noble an adherent really the Christian religion? That may well be doubted. If Herrmann was a Christian, he was a Christian not because of but despite those things that were most distinctive of his teaching. At the heart of Christianity is a view of sin whose profundities were a sealed book to Herrmann and to all of his school. A man under true conviction of sin will never be satisfied with the Ritschlian Jesus, but will seek his way into the presence of that Jesus who redeemed us by His precious blood and is ever living to make intercession for us at the throne of God.

In the New Testament field, I heard at Marburg lectures by no less than four men. Easily foremost in my estimation at that time was A. Jülicher, then at the very height of his powers. I shall never forget my first hour in his class-room. Even comparatively trivial things stand out in my mind as I think of the thrill of that hour. I remember, for example, that in speaking of commentaries on Galatians he said of Lightfoot’s commentary that it was “a masterpiece of learned work” (ein Meisterstrück gelehrter Arbeit). What a homelike feeling it gave me to hear our revered Lightfoot praised by a leader in such an opposite school of thought!

In general, I have found that day to this that the really able men do not by any means share the contemptuous attitude toward conservative scholars which seems to be regarded as a mark of learning in certain circles in America. That may serve to give comfort to us believers in the truth of the Bible. On the other hand, I have never been able to give myself the comfort which some devout believers seem to derive from a contemptuous attitude toward the men on the other side of the great debate; I have never been able to dismiss the “higher critics” en masse with a few words of summary condemnation. Much deeper, it seems to me, lies the real refutation of this mighty attack upon the truth of our religion; and we are not really doing our cause service by underestimating the power of the adversaries in the debate.

When I was at Marburg, J. Weiss seemed to me to be somewhat overshadowed by Jülicher. He was a very delightful man, who showed his kindness by inviting me to his house and by befriending me in every way. Also he was a clear and popular lecturer. But I thought of him rather as a popularizer than as a profound scholar. I have since then come to see that this impression was totally incorrect. His Urchristentum and above all his amazingly rich and learned commentary on I Corinthians have made me repent of my youthful injustice to one of the ablest of modern New Testament scholars.

Rudolf Knopf, who later went to the Protestant faculty at Vienna, lectured when I was at Marburg on “New Testament Introduction.” It was a clear and methodical course of lectures, in which the entire field of special introduction was covered. As I compared it with the treatment of the same subject by Armstrong at Princeton, I observed to my delight that the old Princeton had placed the real questions before me in a thoroughly fair and comprehensive way. The conclusions arrived at in the two cases were very different, but at least my Princeton teacher had not concealed from me either the position of the opponents or the evidence upon which their contentions were based. Many criticisms have been brought against the old Princeton Seminary; but whoever brings against it the charge that it substituted passionate dogmatism for fair and scholarly treatment of the opposing “views can be set down as either violently prejudiced or completely ignorant about that of which he is venturing to speak.

At Marburg, I listened also to lectures on the Gospel of John by Walter Bauer, then a young Privat-dozent, now the distinguished successor of Schürer and Harnack in the editorship of the Theologische Literaturzeitung. The course, which came at eight o’clock on the dark winter mornings, was attended by four students—two Germans, one Englishman, and myself. On a number of occasions the two Germans were absent; and once, I remember, the Englishman was absent too, so that the lecture was delivered (with all the academic formality characteristic of a German lecture-room) for my sole benefit. On another occasion, I confess that the regularity of my attendance was impaired. That was on the morning after a hastily organized Nachtbummel which took me with a crowd of my German fellow-students on an expedition through the surrounding country that lasted from midnight until seven o’clock.

One thing that surprised me in Germany was the amount of intellectual labor that can be accomplished by a German student with a minimum of sleep. The secret no doubt is that German students have learned to work at the Gymnasium before the joyous university semesters are begun. Our American students for the most part have never learned to work; and what little acquaintance with intellectual application the students of twenty-five years ago may have attained is today being destroyed partly by a ruthless standardization, which is standardization down and not standardization up, and partly by the untrammelled operation of our great American pedagogic discovery that it is possible to think with a completely empty mind. Solid subjects have almost been removed from American schools, and a really distressing intellectual decadence is the not unnatural result.

At Göttingen, during the summer semester of 1906, I heard Schürer, Bousset, Heitmüller and (in another department) Kattenbusch. Schürer had the reputation in some quarters of being tiresome; but I did not find him so at all. The careful, methodical character of his mind was well expressed in his lectures, and one came away from them impressed with the kind of mental process necessary for massive learning such as that which is displayed in “The History of the Jewish People.” Heitmüller had promise of brilliant achievement; but for some reason his published contributions afterwards were less extensive than might at that time have been expected. His death was untimely, like the death of J. Weiss, Knopf and Bousset. Bousset’s lectures were brilliant, as might have been expected from an examination of his published work. I can see him now as he chopped off some sharp, incisive utterance, and looked around with his great round eyes while the effect would sink into the mind of the class. His official position was only that of an extraordinarius, but already he was one of the really commanding figures in the theological world.

My admiration for Bousset’s learning and brilliancy were later increased by his book, Kyrios Christos, which appeared in 1913. Not since the time of F.C. Baur, it seems to me, has there appeared such an original, comprehensive and grandly conceived re-writing of early Christian history. The construction is mistaken—of that I am firmly convinced and tried to give some expression to my conviction in The Origin of Paul’s Religion—but it is mistaken in a grand and incisive way. It is such books which at least present, even though they do not solve, the really central problems.

A comparison of Bousset on the one hand with Norden and Reitzenstein on the other will show the difference between mere theologians in Germany and the occupants of philological chairs. The difference is not found in any agreement on the part of the theologians with the Bible or the Christian Faith, nor is it found in any inferiority “of their scholarship. But it is found in the fact that whereas the philologians seem to regard it as the mark of a true scholar to be obscure, the theologians are not ashamed to be clear. Certainly nothing could exceed the clarity of Bousset’s Kyrios Christos. It is an immensely learned book; but the facts that it adduces are marshalled like a well-disciplined army; the reader is never in any doubt as to what ever fact, whether mistakenly or nor, is intended to prove.

The type of thing that Bousset represented and that Jülicher represents is to a certain extent out of date in Germany at the present time. Owing partly to the Barthian depreciation of historical studies in the Biblical field, and partly, I am obliged to think, to the bankruptcy of the naturalistic reconstruction of the beginnings of Christianity, New Testament studies occupy by no means the place in the intellectual life of the country that they occupied twenty-five years ago. But the pendulum will swing back. The interest of the human race in those amazing historical documents that form the New Testament will never permanently be lost.

The way in which I was received in Germany by both students and professors aroused in me a gratitude which it is needless to say the war has done nothing to destroy. I had in many respects a happy time when I was there in 1905-1906. In other respects, it was a time of struggle and of agony of soul. I was living in an environment where the Christian religion as I knew and loved it had long been abandoned. No Christian man could live in such an environment without facing questions of a very serious kind.

It was not Germany, however, that first brought doubts into my soul; for I had been facing them for years before my German student days. Obviously it is impossible to hold on with the heart to something that one has rejected with the head, and all the usefulness of Christianity can never lead us to be Christians unless the Christian religion is true. But is it true or is it not? That is a serious question indeed. I may perhaps be subserving the purpose of this series of sketches if at this point I mention certain considerations that were useful to me as I passed through the long and bitter experience that the raising of this question brought into my life.

One consideration was presented in particularly clearcut fashion by an illustration which Francis L. Patton used to employ in one of his lectures or sermons, which I heard in my college days. I do not think it ever found a place in any of his published work, and I cannot remember the details of it with anything approaching accuracy. But he likened the man who faces the problem of living to a man who stands on the waterfront looking over the ships that might take him across the sea. He is obliged to go, and the only question is in which ship his voyage shall be made. Two ships lie at the dock. One of them, he is told, is new and well found, has a careful captain and is rated A-1 at Lloyd’s. He is favorably impressed, but being a cautious man turns by way of comparison to the other. That, he is told, is old and rotten, has a drunken captain and is ready to be condemned. Will he then choose the former ship? “No,” he says, “despite the evidence for the goodness of that ship, I cannot be certain of its goodness, and so I must choose the second ship after all!”

Such, said Patton in effect, is our conduct if we refuse to act on reasonable probability in this matter of religion. We have not choice about undertaking this business of living—and of dying. We cannot choose but make the voyage. The only question is in which ship we shall go. One ship presents itself with evidences of safety far superior to those of all others. It is the ship of Christianity, the way of living and dying founded upon the supernatural revelation that the Bible contains. Shall we desert that ship for one far less approved, simply because the “evidence in its favor does not amount to apodictic certitude? Or, acting on the best evidence that we can obtain, shall we make the great venture of faith and launch forth into the deep at Christ’s command?

Bishop Blougram, too, was a great help to me as Patton used to quote him in the pulpit and in the home; and that comfort was to be had no matter what sort of character Browning meant Bishop Blougram to be. The question is not merely whether we can rest in our faith, but whether we can rest in the doubt that is the necessary alternative of faith. We pass sometimes through periods of very low spiritual vitality. The wonderful gospel which formerly seemed to be so glorious comes to seem almost like an idle tale. Hosts of objections arise in our minds; the whole unseen world recedes in the dim distance, and we think for the moment that we have relinquished the Christian hope. But then let us just face this situation; let us just imagine that we had really given up all these things that formerly seemed to us so dear. Ah, when we do that, life seems to us to be a hopeless blank. It is all very well to toy with the thought of a Christless world, but when we once imagine ourselves living in it we see that really, in our heart of hearts and mind of minds, we have not given up our Saviour after all.

Another thing used to be said to me by my mother in those dark hours when the lamp burned dim, when I thought that faith was gone and shipwreck had been made of my soul. “Christ,” she used to say, “keeps firmer hold on us than we keep on Him.”

That means, at least, when translated into worldly terms, that we ought to distrust our moods. Many a man has fallen into despair because, losing the heavenly vision for the moment, passing through the dull lowlands of life, he takes such experience as though it were permanent, and deserts a well-grounded conviction which was the real foundation of his life. Faith is often diversified by doubt, but a man should not desert the conviction of his better moments because the dark moments come.

But my mother’s word meant something far deeper than all that. It meant rather that salvation by faith does not mean that we are saved because we keep ourselves at every moment in an ideally perfect attitude of confidence in Christ. No, we are saved because, having once been united to Christ by faith, we are His for ever. Calvinism is a very comforting doctrine indeed. Without its comfort, I think I should have perished long ago in the castle of Giant Despair. When I returned from Germany in 1906, I entered, as instructor in the New Testament department, into the teaching staff of Princeton Theological Seminary. Except for an interval in France and Belgium from January"to March 1919, I was at Princeton (first as instructor and then as Assistant Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis) from 1906 until the reorganization of the seminary in 1929.

During the first part of this period, life in the faculty of the seminary was of a most delightful kind. Francis L. Patton was president, and in him the finest traditions of the institution were preserved. Warfield was Professor of Systematic Theology (or “Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology,” as the chair was then more sonorously and vigorously called). And what a wonderful man he was! His learning was prodigious. No adequate notion of its breadth can be obtained even from his voluminous collected works. Consult him on the most out-of-the-way subjects, and you would find him with the “literature” of each subject at his tongue’s end and able to give you just the guidance of which you had need. Now and then, in wonderfully generous fashion, he would go out of his way to give a word of encouragement to a younger man. The old Princeton was an environment in which a man felt encouraged to do his very best.

My best was none too good, but it was done at least “with my whole heart. At the beginning of my Senior year as a student, I remember a piece of advice which was given my by Kerr Duncan Macmillan, then Instructor in Semitic Philology, who later left the seminary and entered, as President of Wells College, into an entirely different field. I mentioned to him the question that was being debated in my mind as to whether during my Senior year I should find time for general reading or compete for the New Testament fellowship. He advised me to do the latter. I could do general reading, he told me, at any time in my life, but the opportunity to do that piece of detailed research would come then and then only. Excellent advice it was. Many a student might be saved from a desultatory life if he could receive and act upon advice like that. I acted upon it, to the very best of my ability, by writing a thesis on “The New Testament Account of the Birth of Jesus,” and I have always been grateful to the one from whom the advice came.

My schedule as a teacher at Princeton was rather a heavy one, and I do not regret the fact. There were some advanced courses to keep me alive, and I also had the job of teaching elementary Greek. This latter was never mere drudgery to me, as it is to some men. I have notions about it different from those that often prevail, and after fifteen years’ experience I embodied them in my little textbook, New Testament Greek for Beginners. A teacher of language, it seems to me, or the writer of an elementary textbook, should never yield to the temptation of displaying his philological learning—I myself was greatly helped in my resistance to this temptation by having so little philological learning to display—but should ruthlessly sacrifice everything else to the impartation of a reading knowledge of the language. Philological discussion is very interesting and very important, but it should come later. It is not learning, but often mere pedantry, to discuss the detailed history of a language that one cannot read. The more general observance of that principle might have delayed, even if it could not have prevented, the sad disfavor into which the classics have fallen in our day.

In 1921, I had the honor of delivering the James Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. The resulting book, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, 1921, in which the lectures appeared in greatly enlarged form, deals really with the problem of the origin of the Christian religion. It cannot be doubted but that what is commonly known as “historic Christianity”—the Christianity of the main body of the Church—is found in essentials in the Epistles of Paul, whose genuineness is not denied by serious historians, whether they are Christians or not. Paul thought that his religion was based upon Jesus of Nazareth, one of his contemporaries, who had recently died a shameful death. If Paul was wrong in that, how did the religion of Paul actually arise? I attempted to pass in review the various generically different hypotheses which in modern times have been advanced to answer that question; and in doing so I endeavored to exhibit the inadequacy of all naturalistic hypotheses and present reasons to show, instead, that Paul’s view of the origin of his religion is correct. In particular, I tried to show (1) that the “Liberal” or Ritschlian historians were right over against Wrede and other radicals in insisting that Paul possessed and cherished a knowledge of the real Jesus, but (2) that the radicals were right over against the “Liberals” in insisting that the Jesus whom Paul’s religion presupposes is no mere teacher of righteousness but a supernatural Redeemer come into the world for the salvation of men. The true synthesis, I argued, is found only when that supernatural Redeemer, presupposed in the Epistles of Paul and presented in detail in the Gospels, is held to be the real Jesus who walked upon this earth.

In my little book, Christianity and Liberalism, 1923, I tried to show that the issue in the Church of the present “day is not between two varieties of the same religion, but, at bottom, between two essentially different types of thought and life. There is much interlocking of the branches, but the two tendencies, Modernism and supernaturalism, or (otherwise designated) non-doctrinal religion and historic Christianity, spring from different roots. In particular, I tried to show that Christianity is not a “life” as distinguished from a doctrine, and not a life that has doctrine as its changing symbolic expression but that—exactly the other way around—it is a life founded on a doctrine.

In What Is Faith?, 1925, I tried to combat the anti-intellectualism of the Modernist church—the false separation which is set up between faith and knowledge—and to present the New Testament teaching as to what faith is. That endeavor involved necessarily some treatment of the object of faith, so that the little book contains a brief and summary treatment of considerable portions of Christian doctrine.

In The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1930, a book which contains in enlarged form the Thomas Smyth Lectures which I had the honor of delivering at Columbia Theological Seminary, I have tried to present the subject indicated by the title in a somewhat comprehensive way. Whether it is a good book is a question which I shall not presume to answer, but no one can deny that it is a big one!

At present I am engaged in a series of expository studies for the monthly journal, Christianity Today, which is the organ of the evangelical party in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., and is devoted to the propagation and defense of the Reformed Faith throughout the world. I can scarcely imagine a greater privilege than to serve in such an enterprise. The journal is in many respects unique among church papers. It is not at all technical, and is intended for laymen as well as for ministers. But it seeks to avoid the superficiality of the average church paper, and addresses itself, under the able editorship of Samuel G. Craig, assisted by H. McAllister Griffiths, to thinking men and women who believe that knowledge and piety should go hand in hand.

The period of twenty-seven years during which, with two short intervals, I was connected, first as student and then as teacher, with Princeton Theological Seminary, witnessed the conflict between the old Princeton and the newer forces now dominant in the Presbyterian Church; and finally it witnessed the triumph of the latter in the reorganization of the seminary in 1929.

The old Princeton Seminary may have been good or it may have been bad—opinions differ about that—but at least it was distinctive and at least it was a power in the affairs of men. It was known throughout the world as the chief stronghold of a really learned and really thoroughgoing “Calvinism” in the English-speaking peoples. Even its opponents, if they were scholars, spoke of it with respect.

The old Princeton Seminary first resisted, then succumbed to, the drift of the times. It did not succumb of its own free will; for the majority of its governing board as well as the majority of its faculty desired to maintain the old policy; but that board was removed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1929 and another board was placed in control. Thus the future conformity of Princeton Seminary to the general drift of the times was assured.

This view of the matter has been strenuously opposed by many of those responsible for the change; but how any other view can possibly be taken by any real observer it has always been beyond my power to comprehend.

When the reorganization of Princeton Seminary took place, some men felt that so fine a scholarly tradition as that of the old Princeton ought not to be allowed to perish from the earth. Obviously it could not successfully be “continued at Princeton, under the new and unsympathetic board, but elsewhere it might be carried on.

It is being carried on at the new Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, which was founded in 1929, largely though the initiative of self-sacrificing laymen, “to carry on and perpetuate policies and traditions of Princeton Theological Seminary, as it existed prior to the reorganization thereof in 1929, in respect to scholarship and militant defense of the Reformed Faith.”

The new seminary is vigorously opposed to the intellectual decadence which is so widely manifested in our day. It sets its face like a flint, for example, against the indolent notion that scholarly preparation for the ministry can be carried on without a knowledge of the original languages of the Bible. It is opposed to short cuts and easy lines of least resistance. It is in favor of earnest work, and its students as well as its faculty share that attitude. In particular, it believes that the Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light.

My whole heart is in this institution and in the cause that it represents. I believe that that cause involves not reaction, but true progress; and I rejoice in my comradeship with the hopeful group of men who constitute its faculty. Particularly do I rejoice in my comradeship with the students. Technically I stand to them in the relation of teacher to scholar; but in reality I often receive from them more than I can give. They have taught me by their brave devotion to principle, by their willingness to sacrifice all for the sake of Christ, that the old gospel is an ever new and living thing. The true hope of the Church rests in such men as these. Meanwhile, as I meet with them in prayer and labor, I feel anew what a blessing Christian fellowship is in the midst of a hostile world.

We who are reckoned as “conservatives” in theology are seriously misinterpreted if we are regarded as men who are holding desperately to something that is old merely because it is old and are inhospitable to new truths. On the contrary, we welcome new discoveries with all our heart; and we are looking, in the Church, not merely for a continuation of conditions that now exist but for a burst of new power. My hope of that new power is greatly quickened by contact with the students of Westminster Seminary. There, it seems to me, we have an atmosphere that is truly electric. It would not be surprising if some of these men might become the instruments, by God’s grace, of lifting preaching out of the sad rut into which it has fallen, and of making it powerful again for the salvation of men.

There are certain root convictions which I hold in common with Westminster Seminary and with the journal Christianity Today—in common with these representatives of the ancient yet living tradition of the old Princeton. I hold (1) that the Christian religion, as it is set forth on the basis of Holy Scripture in the Standards of the Reformed Faith, is true, and (2) that the Christian religion as so set forth requires and is capable of scholarly defense. The former of these two convictions makes me dislike the term “Fundamentalism.” If, indeed, I am asked whether I am a Fundamentalist or a Modernist, I do not say, “Neither.” I do not quibble. In that disjunction, as the inquirer means it, I have very definitely taken sides. But I do not apply the term “Fundamentalist” to myself. I stand, indeed, in the very warmest Christian fellowship with those who do designate themselves by that term. But, for my part, I cannot see why the Christian religion, which has had a rather long and honorable history, should suddenly become an “-ism” and be called by a strange new name.

The second of the two convictions just formulated—that the Christian religion requires and is capable of scholarly defense—does not mean that a man ever was made a Christian merely by argument. There must also be the mysterious work of the Spirit of God in the new birth.” But because argument is insufficient it does not follow that it is unnecessary. From the very beginning, true Christianity has always been presented as a thoroughly reasonable thing. Men sometimes tell us, indeed, that we ought not to be everlastingly defending Christianity, but rather ought simply to go forth to propagate Christianity. But when men talk thus about propagating Christianity without defending it, the thing that they are propagating is pretty sure not to be Christianity at all. Real Christianity is no mere form of mysticism, but is founded squarely upon a body of truth.

The presentation of that body of truth necessarily involves controversy with opposing views. People sometimes tell us that they are tired of controversy in the Church. “Let us cease this tiresome controversy,” they say, “and ask God, instead, for a great revival.” Well, one thing is clear about revivals—a revival that does not stir up controversy is sure to be a sham revival, not a real one. That has been clear ever since our Lord said that He had come not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword. A man who is really on fire with a message never thinks of decrying controversy but speaks the truth that God has given him to speak without thought of the favor of men.

In all controversy, however, the great principle of liberty should be preserved. I am old-fashioned in my belief that the Bible is true, but I am equally old-fashioned in my love of freedom. I am opposed to the attack on freedom in whatever form it may come. I am opposed to the Soviets, and I am opposed to Mussolini.

For the same reason also, I am opposed to the rapidly growing bureaucracy in this country. I am opposed to a Federal department of education; I am opposed to monopolistic public schools; I am opposed to a standardization that treats human beings as though they were Ford cars. For the same reason, to say nothing of far deeper reasons, I am opposed to a church union which is the deadliest enemy of Christian unity. I am opposed with all my mind and heart to the depressing dream of a monopolistic Protestant church organization placing the whole Protestant world under one set of tyrannical committees and boards. I am opposed to the growing discouragement of free discussion in my own church and other churches. I am opposed to secret church courts or judicial commissions. In all ecclesiastical affairs I believe in open covenants openly arrived at. I am opposed with all my might to actions like the action of the last Presbyterian General Assembly tending to discourage publicity regarding measures proposed for adoption by the church.

Just because I believe in liberty, I believe in the right of purely voluntary association. I believe in the right of a voluntary association like the Presbyterian Church. If a man does not believe that the Bible is true, and in his interpretation of the Bible is not an adherent of the Reformed Faith, I am opposed to exerting any compulsion on him to become a Presbyterian minister. If he adopts some other position other than that of the Presbyterian Church, let him have full liberty to become a minister in some other body. But if he does choose to become a Presbyterian minister, I hold that he should be able honestly, and without mental reservation, to subscribe to the ordination pledge setting forth that for which the Presbyterian Church exists. Without such honesty there can be no possibility of Christian fellowship anywhere for those who do with their whole heart hold to what that pledge sets forth. And true Christian fellowship, not forced organizational union of those who disagree in the whole direction of their thought and life, is the real need of the hour.

I take a grave view of the present state of the Church; I think that those who cry, " ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is not peace,” constitute the greatest menace to the people of God. I am in little agreement with those who say, for “example, that the Presbyterian Church, to which I belong, is “fundamentally sound.” For my part, I have two convictions regarding the Presbyterian Church. I hold (1) that it is not fundamentally sound but fundamentally unsound; and I hold (2) that the Holy Spirit is able to make it sound. And I think we ought, very humbly, to ask Him to do that. Nothing kills true prayer like a shallow optimism. Those who form the consistently Christian remnant in the Presbyterian Church and in other churches, instead of taking refuge in a cowardly anti-intellectualism, instead of decrying controversy, ought to be on their knees asking God to bring the visible Church back from her wanderings to her true Lord.

We can, if we are Christians, still be confident and joyous in these sad days. This is not the first time of unbelief in the history of the Church. There have been other times equally or almost equally dark, yet God has brought His people through. Even in our day, there are far more than seven thousand who have now bowed the knee to the gods of the hour. But our real confidence rests not in the signs of the times, but in the great and precious promises of God. Contrast the glories of God’s Word with the weak and beggarly elements of this mechanistic age, contrast the liberty of the sons of God with the ever-increasing slavery into which mankind is falling in our time, and I think we shall come to see with a new clearness, despite the opposition of the world, that we have no reason to be ashamed of the gospel of Christ.

You can find more of Machen’s writings at readmachen.com.

Personal Reminiscences of J. Gresham Machen

Dr. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was the leader in the formation of a doctrinally sound Presbyterian denomination in 1936 out of the Northern Presbyterian Church’s departure from the truth of Scripture and the Reformed faith.

In 1986 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church will be celebrating its 50th anniversary. At the same time it will be approaching a vote on joining the Presbyterian Church in America, a denomination formed in 1973 out of similar concerns within the Southern Presbyterian Church.

Although Machen had family roots in the South, he is not so well-known there as in the North. And a new generation needs to know the man as well as his writings. Following are memories from some of those who knew him personally.

Paul Wooley

Professor of church history at Westminster Seminary, from its beginnings in 1929 until a few years before his death in 1984.

This is the first chapter of his book “The Significance of J. Gresham Machen Today ” (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), used by permission of the publisher.

The ivy on Marquand Chapel [at Princeton University] was rattling in the wind. The colors in the leaves sank into the luscious strawberry preserve hue of the sandstone walls. It was a satisfying building except for the beer-bottle turret on the northwest angle. Otherwise there was nothing distinctive about it, but it looked in place and matched the tone of Murray-Dodge on the right, of Dickinson on the left, of the Pyne Library across the road. The Christian Student, as he was called, still stood on his granite pedestal between Pyne and Murray-Dodge with that Victorian combination of an athletic sweater, an academic gown, and an armful of books. Victorian allegory was very simplistic.

On the second floor in Murray-Dodge, where the Christian Student could almost look into the window, sat Samuel Shoemaker, the secretary of the Philadelphian Society. He was a young man, and he told the freshman who came in to ask him what the Philadelphian Society stood for that it was an up-to-date society and had no use for “those old mossbacks over at the Theological Seminary” on the western edge of town.

This morning the notice at the foot of the right-hand column on the front page of The Daily Princetonian said that some unknown from the Seminary, perhaps one of the mossbacks, would speak in the chapel service that day. His name was J. Gresham Machen, according to the notice.

Marquand Chapel was brighter inside than out, for the lights were reflected from all the decorative brass and the highly varnished wood. But the audience in mid-morning was sparse as usual.

The freshman was soon alert. What this “unknown” was saying was more refreshing than anything he had ever heard before in Marquand Chapel. It seemed to be a forthright and unhackneyed statement of what the Bible had to say. It was clear, vigorous, interesting and directive.

The freshman always went to chapel after that whenever the Princetonian announced that Machen would be the speaker.

Henry W. Coray

Orthodox Presbyterian minister, Goleta, Calif.

In 1934 at a Westminster Seminary alumni dinner, the late Dr. Gordon A. MacLennan, a minister in the (then) United Presbyterian Church, asked the question: “What is it in Dr. Machen that stands out above everything else? To me the answer does not lie in his scholarship, or in his teaching ability, or inhis literary skill, great as these are. In my opinion the one feature about him that overshadows everything else is his passionate longing to see the Lordship of Christ exercised in his church.”

Unless one realizes this, he will never understand the moods and moves of J. Gresham Machen. He will be an enigma. But for that almost obsessive drive, the man would have been content to limit himself quietly to his classroom instruction and disregard the battle that raged around him. In his day a frontal attack against historic Christianity was fragmenting the Protestant church. What Walter Lippmann called “the acids of modernity” were corroding the minds and souls of “multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.” Dr. Machen had been nurtured in a domestic atmosphere that combined true godliness with fine culture. He had honed the scalpel of his mind at Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Theological Seminary (in his day a bastion of Reformed theology) and later took graduate work in Germany. Returning to this country, he taught at Princeton Seminary until Westminster Seminary was founded in 1929.

His writings projected him to international renown. Books such as Christianity and Liberalism, What Is Faith?, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, and The Virgin Birth of Christ brought forth lavish praise from conservatives everywhere, and caused liberal theologians to know that a scholar of quality had come forward to define and defend the gospel, and to challenge their presuppositions.

Interesting is the fact that a freethinker like H. L. Mencken enthused: “I think that, given his faith, his position is completely impregnable. There is absolutely no flaw in the argument with which he supports it. If he is wrong, then the science of logic is hollow vanity, signifying nothing.” I consider it a rare privilege to have studied under Dr. Machen for three years. It was an honor to have had him deliver the sermon at my ordination service, and to have had him assist at my wedding. It was sheer delight to have roomed across the hall from him at Alexander Hall in old Princeton.

Little incidents are often significant. One morning I happened to be in his quarters and noticed him pulling the covers from his Beautyrest after it had been made. He tried not to look like the child caught with his fingers grasping the apple tarts.

I said, “Sir, why don’t you show the maid how you want it fixed? I’m sure she’d be glad to oblige.”

“Oh, I couldn’t do that,” he said. “I’m afraid she’d lose face.”

Some day people may understand why he was greatly loved by servants and by children.

Donald C. Graham

Pastor, Mcllwain Memorial Presbyterian Church (PCA), Pensacola, Fla.

Like his Savior, J. Gresham Machen was a divider of men, possibly as much so as any Christian leader of this century. Opinions differ sharply on whether he was right or wrong and, more basically, whether his character was true or flawed. He was sensitive to people but, fortunately, he was insensitive to opinions which he felt betrayed the truth of God and that sought accommodation and compromise.

To live close to him as his student was to feel you were living in the shadow of an Alpine peak, and one stands in awe rather that feeling chummy with such a mountain. To fall in step with him on the way to class was to let him lead in conversation, and it was not easy to suggest light or jocular chatter. Yet, Machen’s sense of humor could overwhelm him, as on the student night when he could be doubled up with laughter, then always conclude the evening with the best performance, his comedy readings. Such was his humanness.

He loved his students, and this was basic to his being acknowledged one of the great teachers of his age. While lecturing, there were all manner of idiosyncratic bodily movements—climbing a chair and table or writing backwards on the blackboard an entire conjugation of a Greek verb while his lecture continued unabated—all such would keep your attention riveted not on his body movements but, finally, on his great thought processes, ever stating and defending the Word of God. The Bible and the gospel of Christ were a profound passion to him, and this persuasion captured those who listened.

His devotion to his students was magnificently illustrated to me in my first year of seminary. I took “Baby Greek” under the distinguished scholar, Ned B. Stonehouse. One day “Stoney” was unable to meet his class, and the rumor passed through the corridors that Machen would take his place. To us comparatively new students, it was an overwhelming prospect that the author of the textbook, the great “Das” (“Das” being the article with the German word Made hen, meaning “maiden”) would confront us on our Greek lesson that day. The result was that Machen faced only three students and heard report that the other dozen men of the class were afraid to face him. He was reportedly grieved. “Stoney” was back in his classes the next day, but not for Beginners’ Greek. Machen held on so to face the entire class. But, again, the word was out he would teach, and only two more men were added. I returned the third day! Machen held on to the fourth day, when all the class was back. Such was the measure of where he wanted to live with his “boys.”

And be very sure, Das was a teacher to inspire the best. None ever moved me to such labor—and better grades— simply because it was unthinkable that one would not do his best for Machen. Would all could follow his example in inspiring others to do their best. A better world indeed! And a better church!

In 1935, I sat through all of Machen’s trials before New Brunswick Presbytery at First Presbyterian Church, Trenton, N.J. As every possible parliamentary maneuver was used to silence Machen’s witness against liberalism in the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., even his brother, Arthur—distinguished Baltimore lawyer—hamstrung, one felt the issues were being drawn with terrible finality as to where the church was heading—engulfed by Modernism. Here was a Luther “standing against the world,” because he could do no other.

As the end of the 1936 Christmas break came, Westminster Seminary students returned to Philadelphia to face the dire news that Machen had died rather suddenly in Bismarck, N.D. I shall never forget the somber faces and heavy hearts of the men as we sat in the lobby soberly reflecting on what-ever-in-the-worid life could possibly be like without “Das” Machen. Maybe the answer was best found in the strong action of a man like R. B. Kuiper, formerly pastor of some of the largest churches in Michigan and once a college president, a minister of the Christian Reformed Church. With nothing apparently to gain and much he could lose, Kuiper as the new chairman of Westminster’s faculty cast his lot in that dark hour with the baby Orthodox Presbyterian Church and stayed with it a score of years.

The Machen funeral brought together a great crowd, including such ecclesiastical opponents as President Mackay of Princeton Seminary, as well as former companions-in-labor who betrayed his cause.

In the years of controversy, leaders of the big Presbyterian denomination would comment that Machen might even be Moderator of their General Assembly if only he would live more amicably with them, but now he was a stranger to the big Presbyterian churches of Philadelphia, any of whose pulpits he had occupied, and his funeral had to be conducted in a large Baptist church. There was no eulogy— nor would he have wanted it. There was not even a sermon. There was the solemn reading of the Word of God which had so dominantly overspread his entire life—and there was prayer because, fittingly, he had acknowledged his was a life of utter dependence upon a sovereign God—to whom must be all the glory forever.

Allan A. Macrae

Chancellor, Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pa.

My first knowledge of J. Gresham Machen came when I read on the front page of a Los Angeles newspaper that Dr. Henry Van Dyke had walked out of a service at First Presbyterian Church in Princeton where Dr. Machen had preached, declaring his preaching was “a bilious travesty of the gospel.”

About that time Dr. Machen’s book, Christianity and Liberalism, appeared, and I found that I could not lay it down until I had completed reading it. He showed very clearly that liberalism is not only a different religion from Christianity but an entirely different type of religion. He had been shocked at the willingness of some of his colleagues to make common cause with those who denied the authority of Scripture and the deity of Christ. His clear style and convincing logic made me long to know him personally.

The next fall I entered Princeton Seminary and was privileged to become a friend of Dr. Machen—a friendship that continued during three years as a seminary student, two years spent studying abroad, and seven-and-a-half years as a fellow-teacher.

During my second year at Princeton Seminary members of the seminary’s Board of Directors who admired Dr. Machen’s clear stand for the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ desired that his major activity be no longer restricted to the teaching of New Testament subjects but extended to defense of the central doctrines of Christianity and therefore voted toelect him to the vacant position of Professor of Apologetics. Although he would have preferred to continue devoting most of his time to New Testament study, these directors prevailed upon him to agree to accept the position.

At that time the official title of the seminary was “The Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.” and appointment to its faculty required approval by the General Assembly. The president of the seminary, whom a more recent president has called “the unsung hero,” strongly urged the Assembly not to confirm Dr. Machen’s appointment and after heated debate a motion to postpone final action for one year was passed.

I visited Dr. Machen-several times during the days immediately following the Assembly and it was pitiful to see his gratitude for my sympathy. Although the liberals considered him a fighter, he was really very tenderhearted and easily hurt. He was particularly distressed by the rumors that had been circulated through the Assembly, though not openly expressed on the floor, that his assets were derived from the profits of manufacturers of liquor. He said to me: “I would hate to think that any of my money came from such a source.”

This leads to mention of a remark he made a few years later when he and I were walking together in the Canadian Rockies. As we hiked on a trail along the side of a narrow valley, with a rushing mountain stream below us on our right, I became thirsty and ran down to the stream for a drink of water. Then I refilled my cup, climbed back up to the trail and offered the water to Dr. Machen. He said, “Thank you, but no, I cannot take it. Glacier water always upsets me. I dare not drink it.” Then he added, “During my visits to the Swiss Alps there have been times where I felt so miserable I almost thought I would die, when I have been staying for a few days at one of those mountain shelters that provide climbers of the high mountains with food and lodging. The only water available was glacier water—which I did not dare to drink. Often I was tempted to buy some of the very weak wine they have for sale, but for the sake of the weaker brother I never did.”

How I admired his loyalty to his principles! There he was, high in the mountains, surrounded by Germans and Austrians who had no idea who he was. This wine had such a small alcoholic content that it could not possibly have had any effect other than to quench his thirst. Yet in spite of the misery he had to endure because he could not drink the glacier water, he would not touch it.

J. Gresham Machen was indeed a fine Christian gentleman—a man of principle who suffered much for his convictions. Knowing him was one of the great privileges of my life.

R. Laird Harris

professor-emeritus, Covenant Seminary, and PCA minister, Wilmington, Del.

I could join others in giving reminiscences about “Dassie” Machen’s antics in the classroom—how you could be taking notes and hear a gentle bumping, only to look up and see him bumping his forehead against the wall while continuing his talking without interruption. I have since wondered if he did such things for his own fun or to give the class some diversion. In any case, I testify that his class in Gospel History was one of the best I ever had. He lectured without notes and began the lecture by pulling his Greek Testament out of his side pocket. One day, before he came in, Max Lathrop left an open English Bible on the desk. Dassie came in, picked it up, looked it over carefully and with a grin said, “Why, I believe it’s a Bible!”

Though he spoke without notes, he wanted students in the exam to give back just the data he had given. Once while we were examining the “Liberal Jesus” concept, I read Bruce Barton’s The Man Nobody Knows, a popular presentation of the subject. I used it in my exam answers, thinking I would get points for collateral reading. He wasn’t impressed. He gave me a B+ with the remark that it sounded more like Bruce Barton than the presentation he had given in class.

On a more serious note, Dr. Machen talked to me in the fall of 1936 when I had graduated and was working as assistant to the Registrar and as student librarian. He said that he was aware of increasing questions about pre- and amillennialism and he was anxious that we would not let the subject polarize the seminary. He, himself, did not make an issue of it in his classes.

But during the Christmas vacation Machen, burdened with the work of starting the new Presbyterian Church of America (later OPC), accepted an engagement in North Dakota. The weather was bitter and Dassie was unprepared, run-down, and unprotected. He caught pneumonia in a time before penicillin, and died, we would say prematurely, at the age of 55. The movement greatly suffered from his absence, for he had been the acknowledged leader in the struggle against liberalism which has, through many vicissitudes, grown to considerable proportions today. His book Christianity and Liberalism is still a powerful argument for the importance of purity of doctrine in the church of Jesus Christ.

Louise R. Graham

Christ’s College, Taipei, Taiwan.

It was The Presbyterian Guardian that brought me in touch with Dr. Machen. I was on the original staff of that publication, serving as office secretary and editor of the Young People’s Page. In the office I worked first under Dr. H. McAllister Griffiths, then under Dr. Ned Stonehouse, but it was Dr. Machen who had planned and financed the publication of the magazine and he was the power behind the throne! Though he did not come into the office as often as we would have liked, he talked to us on the telephone daily. He edited the opening pages of the Guardian: “The Unchanging Word in a Changing World.”

I learned that in a way there was an advantage for me in phone communications. Dr. Machen seemed not quite at home in the presence of ladies, but on the phone he was totally at ease.

I remember one very special occasion, however, when he befriended me in public. I was sent as a delegate to a conference of the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union in Philadelphia—strangely enough, since I was in my mid-twenties at the time, and the conference was definitely not a young people’s conference! Dr. Machen was also a delegate, and he went out of hisway to greet me as though I were one of the many dignitaries present on that occasion. After.that, I felt quite at ease. What more could one ask for than a warm greeting from Dr. Machen?

My last day in the Guardian office was also Dr. Machen’s last day in Philadelphia. He was due to leave before that December day was over on his trip to North Dakota never to return, though his body would be brought back for the funeral service in that city. When he phoned to talk to me that morning the voice that I heard was not his normal voice. Already he had the beginnings of a heavy cold, and I marveled that he should make the effort to phone me under such circumstances and with the long trip ahead of him! “It’s a sad day for us that you should be leaving our office. …” That phone call was never to be forgotten, my last opportunity to experience personally his warmth and kindliness.

How many were the lessons that as a young Christian I learned from Dr. Machen! Faithfulness to our Lord and to his Word at any cost, a recognition of our total dependence upon him, the importance of our oneness with God’s people and our acknowledgment of the gifts and godliness of others—these and many other lessons learned from God’s great servant have stayed with me through the years. “He being dead yet speaketh.”

Edward L. Kellogg

OPC minister, Leesburg, Va.

Dr. Machen, the Teacher.

Dr. Machen inspired students with an intense desire to do well. I vividly recall a time when he called on me in a class studying II Corinthians. As I stumbled around endeavoring to explain the relation and meaning of Greek words in a particular verse, he leaned over a table in front of me and opened his mouth. The more confused I became, the wider he opened his mouth. Finally, as he was almost lying on the table, his mouth wide open and his fist partially in it, I gave the correct answer. He was delighted. He jumped up and with a happy smile on his face said, “Good boy! good boy! good boy!” A student never wanted to come to Machen’s class unprepared.

Dr. Machen on Trial. The trial of Dr. Machen was in progress before a judicatory of the Presbytery of New Brunswick. Dr. Machen and his counsel for the defense, H. McAllister Griffiths, Edwin H. Rian, and Charles J. Woodbridge, together with the members of the trial judicatory and the prosecuting lawyers, sat on the platform, leaving the auditorium for spectators. Surprisingly few people were in attendance. I sat near the front on the right, and across the room sat Robert Atwell, also a student at Westminster.

Machen was charged with violating an order of the General Assembly by organizing and continuing to be active in the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. He thus was alleged to be guilty of disturbing the peace of the church. Dr. Machen and his counsel desired to prove that such a course was necessary because the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church was violating the Word of God in its procedures. Each effort made by Machen’s counsel resulted in a motion to recess. The court adjourned to another room, then in a few moments returned to declare Machen’s arguments out of order. Dr. Machen sat in a very calm and respectful manner, not raising his voice. The procedure was most exasperating and unfair. I glanced across the room. Bob Atwell was bent forward, clutching the pew in front of him as if at any moment he might leap over the pews and simply wipe out the entire court.

Considering the obvious hypocrisy and unfairness of the procedure, Dr. Machen showed remarkable self-control, humility, and respect. He followed the constitution carefully though it was being abused, distorted, and ignored by the court which ought to have followed it most precisely. Machen held to a high view of the doctrine of the church.

Dr. Machen’s Influence. It was a cold wintry night. We had just driven through Pittsburgh on our return from Illinois to the seminary after Christmas holidays. Suddenly the motor began to knock badly. Remarkably we found a garage that was open in Turtle Creek. A mechanic went to work and we called some relatives living in that town. Their first words after our greeting were, “Did you know that Dr. Machen died yesterday?” We were stunned. Just before vacation we had been studying II Corinthians 5: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” I was naturally shy and hesitant about speaking to others of spiritual matters, but the effect of the news of Machen’s death gave me both a sense of urgency and a boldness to speak, and as the mechanic dealt with a serious motor problem, I urged upon him our need of a radical spiritual renewal. My response to the news of Dr. Machen’s death I believe was characteristic of the response of many, for Machen had himself set such an example of faithfulness. A few days later I was honored with several others by being appointed a pallbearer. We rode the train to Baltimore and there carried the body to its resting place.

John M. L. Young

PCA missionary, Tokyo, Japan.

Never will I forget my first class with Dr. Machen 50 years ago. A year earlier at Acadia University I had picked off the table a book of my father’s and began to read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. That night at the supper table I learned about Machen and Westminster Seminary for the first time. The lucid differentiation of the two themes of the book and the cogent presentation of Biblical Christianity led me to a positive conviction that his seminary was the one I wanted to attend. Now, after a ship and train ride from Nova Scotia, there I was sitting in the great man’s class expecting a scholarly dissertation on some aspect of New Testament Introduction, the name of the course.

What we heard in that first hour, however, was spectacularly different— one witty joke or funny story after another until we were literally rolling in our seats, slapping our thighs and laughing our heads off. Machen had loose heavy jowls and on occasion would energetically wag his head from side to side making his somber jowls swish back and forth in a ludicrously comic fashion. It was the most hilarious hour I ever spent in a classroom. The ice was broken for all of us that afternoon as the great scholar in this way shared his humanness and love of life with his overawed students. At the end of the class there was a brief announcement that reminded us of the more serious things to come. On the final exam, we were told, one of the requirements would be the demand to specify one event or teaching in each chapter of the New Testament book the professor would name!

An event looked forward to with high anticipation was the annual invitation to new students to come to Dr. Machen’s apartment for a social evening. He lived in the high-rise Drake building, far up over downtown Philadelphia. As we entered his apartment, he urged us to help ourselves to the refreshments which, we discovered, were in crates of fruit and boxes of cookies we were to break open and enjoy as we wished. My recollection is that there was no hesitation on anybody’s part!

The top entertainment was sitting around on the couch or straddling chairs backwards listening to Machen talk of the struggle with liberalism in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., which he had described in What Is Faith? as “the retrograde anti-intellectual movement called Modernism.” He expressed deep concern over the impending judicial trials as various presbyteries sought to defrock the ministers who refused to abandon the new Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. Before such good company and delicious food, however, the real significance of these things, for some of us at least that night, seemed far away.

The last class with Dr. Machen came far sooner than any of us had ever anticipated. It was Gospel History, on a cold December morning in 1936, the last one before the Christmas holidays. He came into class that morning with a heavy cold and told us he would be going to the station, for the long train trip to North Dakota for meetings, directly from the classroom. He said he really didn’t want to go, but friends there involved in the Presbyterian Church conflict felt he was much needed, so he was going. He went to meet the need; the cold developed into pneumonia; he died on New Year’s Day, 1937.

None of us knew, of course, it would be the last time we would see him alive. At his funeral I remember noticing his small, black, Nestle’s Greek New Testament was placed in his hand on his breast. It was identical with mine, bought at his recommendation, that still lies on my desk with the purchase date written, September 1935. The memories of Dr. J. Gresham Machen are not ones that will be forgotten.

Harold S. Laird

PCA minister, Quarryville, Pa.

It was my great privilege to study as a student in the greatest theological seminary of that time, Princeton Seminary, in 1915, 1916, and 1917.

I sat at the feet of Benjamin B. Warfield and other professors of outstanding scholarship, such as Caspar Wistar Hodge, John Davis, and Robert Dick Wilson. Yet perhaps the most gifted teacher was the young J. Gresham Machen. I shall never cease to thank God for his emphasis on the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I do not recall the period of time that he spent on this subject; I only recall that it was hour after hour for several lectures that he dealt with the subject in such a manner as to meet satisfactorily every objection to the doctine as is commonly pressed by its critics. Romans 10:9 says: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” As I reflect on those lectures, I thank God for his providence that placed me under the teaching of one of the greatest scholars the Christian church has ever produced.

Lewis J. Grotenhuis

OPC minister, Phillipsburg, N.J.

It was my privilege to know Dr. Machen as a person—to marvel at his ability as a scholar; to become utterly mesmerized by his ability to teach the deep thingnms of the Scriptures with simplicity; and to appreciate his love, his zeal, his commitment to the holy Scriptures as the infallible Word of the living God, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit of the triune God. His faith in the Word and in the Christ of the Word was that of a child; his handling of that Word was that of a giant.

Dr. Machen was a Christian gentleman. He was always available to his students. No question or problem was too small for his consideration. He was a person of wide interests, from voicing his thoughts on politics to climbing the Matterhorn. He enjoyed a baseball game, and frequently gave students tickets for the A’s games. He loved to fellowship with the students, and often invited us to an evening of relaxation with an invitation to eat of the good things he had gathered, and issuing a challenge to a game of chess, playing several opponents at the same time. Between moves he would say to the rest of us: “Don’t be tightwads; just help yourself.”

What amazed me more than his hospitality and food on the table was the room he used for a study. It was filled with tables, and on each table were spread books open for ready and constant reference. A scholar was at work. The Christian faith must receive the best. And one look at a new book in process by the man showed that he would indeed make it the best.

You never came late to a Machen class. He was a teacher who not only knew his subject, but one who could teach it well, and while teaching gave a juggling exhibition with a piece of chalk that never seemed to disturb your reception or his instruction. When you left the class, it was with the blessing of spiritual fulfillment, and with a heart that cried out, “O Lord, our God, how great thou art!”

All of his life and labors flowed forth from his deep conviction that the Bible was the very Word of God. He did not stumble over such words as “without contradiction,” “infallible,” “inerrant.” Like Amos, he said simply, “God has spoken; who can but prophesy?” His advice to all of us was, “Preach the Word, nothing but the Word.” He not only preached the Word, he also exemplified the Word.

If you would see how he exemplified the Word in his daily commitment, then take the time to read Romans 12. There, to me, the life of my friend and teacher is reflected. I still try to reflect that life. He, by God’s grace, lived it.

Dr. Machen’s Hope and the Active Obedience of Christ

by John Murray

“I’m so thankful for active obedience of Christ: no hope without it." This was the last message of our beloved friend Dr. Machen to the present writer. It was apparently dictated to his nurse on the day of his decease January 1st. The subject of the active obedience of Christ formed the topic of one of the last conversations we were privileged to have with him, and by the message quoted above he wanted us to know how much that precious truth meant to him as he was passing through the valley of the shadow of death. He was then about to pass into the immediate presence of his Lord. Why should he have suspended the issues of eternal hope upon this truth? Why did he dare to say: “No hope without it”? We hang on to the last words of our friends, but particularly should we do so when they are pregnant with the issues of eternal life or death. It surely interests us to know what precisely he meant by that expression.

The Passive Obedience

In Reformed Theology the formula of the “active and passive obedience of Christ” has been used to set forth and guard two distinct aspects of the substitutionary work of Christ. The passive obedience of Christ is the term that has been used to denote all that Christ did, as the substitute of His people, to satisfy all the claims of law and justice against their sins. It denotes the satisfaction on the part of Christ of all the penal demands of the divine law. The sins of His people were imputed to Christ, and that imputation became the ground of the penalty-bearing that He endured in their room and stead. That satisfaction rendered by Christ is in turn imputed to His people, and becomes the ground of full remission of sin and exemption from its condemnation. So by the grace of God complete remission of sin and of its penalty is grounded in real satisfaction to law and justice. God is just and the justifier of him who hath faith in Jesus (Cf. Rom. 3:26).

The Active Obedience

But the law of God demands more than penalty for sin. It requires of us also perfect obedience to its precept. Justification is a reckoning of us in the divine judgment as not only free from guilt and condemnation but also as having fulfilled all the requirements of His law. It is a declaration that we are, in His sight, righteous. In other words it involves not only remission of sin but also acceptance with God as righteous and therefore reception into the divine favor. There must, then, be positive righteousness placed to the account of the justified person. What is that righteousness? Or, to put it otherwise, what is the ground of this actual justification? It is surely the substitutionary work of Christ, and therefore that substitutionary work must, in order to supply the ground of a real justification, include not only satisfaction for sin and guilt but also obedience to the law in all the extent and detail of its demands. It is this latter that the term “active obedience” denotes. It refers to that undefiled and undefilable righteousness of Christ that is His as our representative and substitute in virtue of His perfect obedience to the divine law. It is that righteousness imputed to the believer that justifies the sentence of justification, and is the proper ground of reception into the divine favor and of the title to everlasting life. Eternal life is a gift of divine grace, but this grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18, 19).

The Title to Glory

It is surely surpassingly appropriate that exactly that truth should occupy the mind of the believer as he is about to pass into the immediate presence of his Lord. How can he with equanimity entertain the thought of appearing before Him except as he looks for favor and acceptance with Him ? How can he contemplate the enjoyment of glory unspeakable apart from a title in righteousness to it? And where can he find the righteousness that grounds a title to such bliss ? The answer is apparent: it is in the perfect righteousness of his surety and substitute. In the words of Jonathan Edwards, “And by that righteousness being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that that righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness that ought to be in ourselves: Christ’s perfect obedience shall be reckoned to our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though we had performed it ourselves: and so we suppose that a title to eternal life is given us as the reward of this righteousness.”¹

A Charge to Those Who Follow

Dr. Machen fought the good fight: he finished the course: he kept the faith. As he was about to cross the line into the unseen beyond, no doubt his mind Would fain reiterate to those who remain behind, the charge of Paul to Timothy: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- suffering and doctrine.” (II Tim.4:2). And apparently there was one thing in particular he would have us constantly raise aloft before the eyes of a sin- dead world: It is the perfect obedience and righteousness of Christ, his Saviour and Lord. “I will go in the strength of the Lord God: I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only” (Ps. 71: 16).

“I am debtor–I am ready–For I am not ashamed of the gospel—.” Rom. 1:14-16

In the heart of the bluegrass region of old Kentucky more than two decades ago, there lived a humble preacher, known affectionately throughout the state as “Uncle Joe Hopper.” He never studied in a college nor a seminary. As a young man he became interested in Sunday School work and became a Sunday School evangelist. Later he became associated with Dr. E. O. Guerrant, the apostle to the people of the Southern mountains, as a singing evangelist and personal worker. Thus as a lay evangelist for a number of years he continued in religious work.

At the age of sixty-seven, upon the initiative of Transylvania presbytery, he was ordained to the gospel ministry as an extraordinary case, and his case was indeed extraordinary. As an exponent of “Old Time Religion”, which was the theme song of his evangelistic meetings, he went up and down the state, into the cities, out into the country, over the mountains, singing and preaching the great evangel. Recently there was placed into my hands a letter written back in the eighties by Dr. Guerrant to Uncle Joe Hopper in which he was urging him to hold a meeting at a certain place. He writes, “We want you to hold a big meeting there soon as you can come. A fine opening for a gracious revival and nobody can help like you. Everybody wants Uncle Joe (The babies crying for him).”

As a seminary student, and as a young preacher in Kentucky before coming to the foreign field, it was a common experience for me to meet any number of people who would tell me that they joined the church under Uncle Joe’s preaching, and I was constantly met with the challenge, “If you will become as good a preacher as your Uncle Joe you’ll be all right.”

In 1920, I came out as a missionary to Korea, thinking I had left all of Uncle Joe’s converts back in America. I had not been here long until in the capital city of Seoul I had the privilege of meeting a young medical missionary of the Souther Methodist church. Upon his hearing my name he said, “Are you any kin to Uncle Joe Hopper? I joined the church under his preaching.” What a joy to hear such a statement in faraway Korea, and from a Methodist at that!

Upon a recent furlough, some twenty years after Uncle Joe’s death, I visited church after church in the state of Kentucky. It was quite common to meet people who told me they united with the church under the preaching of Uncle Joe. As I recall, during the meeting of Kentucky synod at Danville, sitting down to lunch, two or three of the elders at the same table told me they united with the church under Uncle Joe. This illustrates what has deeply impressed me, namely, that the effects of Uncle Joe’s type of evangelism have been lasting, and have influenced so vitally so many of the leaders of the church.

If I mistake not, it was he who reached with the gospel message Dr. David M. Sweets, of sainted memory, who did such a monumental work in the field of religious journalism as editor of the Christian Observer; and also his brother, Dr. Henry H. Sweets, former moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United States, and our most efficient Secretary of Christian Education and Ministerial Relief. It has been conservatively estimated that three thousand people came into the Presbyterian church in Kentucky as a result of the evangelistic work of Uncle Joe.

I am interested in him as a man. He would be considered by many as unlearned and unlettered. Yet men took knowledge of him that he had been with Jesus. He had no degrees to his name, but I am sure has many stars in his crown. I am interested in his methods. He loved children and won them to become precious jewels for the Savior. Both old and young he won personally, speaking an earnest word, which, used of the Holy Spirit, went direct to the heart. He made large use of the gospel in song, singing, making melody in his heart unto the Lord. Not only the man and his methods, but of special interest in this connection, in his message. It was just what you would expect, the simple gospel truth, Holy Ghost religion.

Among his scent sermon notes, I found the appeal of a sermon on “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out”, and these are his words,

Heaven is before you and Christ is the only door. Will you enter? Hell beneath you and Christ only able to deliver. Will you let him save you? Satan behind you and Christ the only Refuge. Will you fly to Him? The law of God against you and Christ only able to redeem. Will you accept Him? Sin weighing you down and Christ only can put it away. Will you let Him?

The only explanation of this man’s successful evangelism is that the Holy Spirit took possession of him, and what gifts he had, and through him spoke the heart of the apostolic message. I am convinced that this is just what the world needs today–both the Occident and the Orient.

Explore all Hopper family Kentucky locations on our interactive map

In 2010, Dr. Darryl Hart (OPC assistant historian and Machen scholar) taught a Sunday school series at Glenside Presbyterian Church on J. Gresham Machen about J. Gresham Machen and the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Camden Bucey of the Reformed Forum kindly recorded the whole series for posterity.¹

Here are the lectures:

1. J. Gresham Machen: Fighter of the Good Fight
2. What Prepared Machen to Fight?
3. Machen and the Crisis of Western Civilization
4. Ecumenism and Intolerance
5. Liberalism, the Different Religion
6. The Fight Against False Optimism
7. The Fight Against Tyranny
8. The Fight Against Liberalism: Foreign Missions
9. The Fight Against Sentimentality
10. The Basis on Which Machen Fought: The Bible
11. Assessing Machen

Hart’s book on Machen, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America, is similarly excellent.

Thomas R. Birch, reporting on the Fifth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America in the Presbyterian Guardian, wrote about the following about debate over the choice of a new name.

The Rev. Edwin H. Rian then reported for the Home Missions Committee on the progress and status of the suit. The committee recommended a discontinuance of the appeal. The motion to adopt this recommendation was laid on the table pending a consideration of the choice of a new name for the denomination. Suggestions for the name were freely made from the floor of the assembly and names were added to this list from correspondence received from those unable to attend the assembly. Six ballots were necessary before the final choice of the name, “The Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” was made.

In the course of the debate about ten names were suggested, some of which did not receive even one vote. Each name that was seriously considered was fully discussed by those who favored it and those who disliked it. There was no slightest tendency to limit debate or to hurry the assembly into the adoption of any name whatever. It was obvious early in the discussion that most of the commissioners preferred one or another of the following four names: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church; The Protestant Presbyterian Church of America; The Presbyterian and Reformed Church; and The Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

Chief protagonist for “The Orthodox Presbyterian Church” was the Rev. Everett C. De Velde of Cincinnati, Ohio, and he was ably assisted by many of his colleagues. Several members of the faculty of Westminster Seminary preferred “The Presbyterian and Reformed Church,” but it did not receive widespread support due to the belief on the part of many that it would cause confusion and misunderstanding, and would sound like a merger of two other churches. “The Evangelical Presbyterian Church” lost ground rapidly in the balloting because of the contention that the word, “Evangelical,” had ceased to have its original meaning and would not present a clear picture of the church’s position. “The Protestant Presbyterian Church of America” was warmly championed throughout the almost eight hours of debate and was not eliminated until the final ballot. It was understood by its defenders as signifying the “protesting” church and was frequently pronounced with the accent upon the second syllable. Those opposed to it pointed out that it would not be thus pronounced by the general public, to whom it would simply mean “non-Catholic.”

“The Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” the name finally chosen on the sixth ballot, had a host of virtues which were fully pointed out by its supporters. It told the world exactly where its members stood in the controversy between Christianity and Modernism, it declared that they took their confession of faith seriously, and it drew a precise theological distinction that was hardly capable of misunderstanding. As one member described it, “It has teeth.”

It is the option of your reporter that no one who had the privilege of listening to the lengthy and free debate left the assembly with a feeling of dissatisfaction or discontent over the final decision. Even those who had favored some other name seemed quite ready to fight in the future under the banner of “The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.” It has seldom been our privilege to hear a more orderly, deliberative, exhaustive, or friendly debate on any subject whatever. The final ballot was not taken until about 11 o’clock in the evening, yet there was no impatience or tendency to hurry a decision. The importance of the occasion seemed recognized by everyone, yet tension and bitterness were completely missing. After the final selection of the name, the following resolution was adopted: “Resolved that this Assembly declares the name of this Church changed from The Presbyterian Church of America to ‘The Orthodox Presbyterian Church,’ effective March 15, 1939.” The assembly then directed its counsel to discontinue the appeal before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, also effective March 15, 1939.

Taken from The Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 6, No. 3. March, 1939.

The Kentucky Dunlaps descended from the notable Dunlop family of Scotland. William Dunlop (1654 - 1703) was a Covenanter, Principal of the University of Glasgow, and first Presbyterian pastor in South Carolina. His son William (1692-1720) was a professor of church history at the University of Edinburgh and defender of the Westminster Confession of Faith. William Jr.’s brother Alexander (1682-1747) taught Adam Smith Greek at Glasgow University. It was probably Alexander’s son John who immigrated to Augusta County, VA. His son William (1744-1816) later died in Lexington, Kentucky.

The oldest son of the first Hopper ancestor of whom we have record (Blackgrove Hopper, my great, great, grandfather) was Joseph Hopper, a name which recurs six times in all. He was married twice, and his second wife was Mary Jane Dunlap (my great-grandmother). We have considerable information about the Dunlap family which is quoted here.

From Lee Dunlap, Kansas City, Missouri, brother of Dr. Fayette Dunlap of Danville, Ky. we have this account:

The Dunlap family is one of the oldest and most distinguished of the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian families of the South. Several kinsmen of the name, born in Ireland, settled in Augusta County, Va., about the middle of the 18th century, and from them have sprung many prominent descendants.

Among them, I will mention, Major William Dunlap II, of Fayette County (note: Lexington, Ky. is the principal city of this county), who was born in 1743. His wife, Rebecca Robertson, was the aunt of Chief Justice George Robertson. They were ancestors of the Rev. James Dunlap, General James Dunlap of the Union Army; Millard F. Dunlap, banker and treasurer of the National Democratic Committed; Brig. Gen. Edward McClernand, of the Union Army; Congressman George W. Dunlap; Eugenia Dunlap Botts, writer; Col. William Watkins Dunlap (Dunlap, Ky.) who left West Point to join the Confederacy; Major Alexander Dunlap, captured at Dudley’s defeat, aid to Jackson at New Orleans, and Major in the Mexican War; George Robertson Dunlap of the Thames, Colonel of Kentucky militia and father of General Henry C. Dunlap of the Union Army.

The following is copied from a photostatic copy of a letter:

At Home, Jessamine County Jan. 5, 1806

Major William Dunlap:

Your musket you carried in the war for liberty was left by your boys at my house during Christmas holidays. Your boys and mine had a good time shooting turkeys and firing off guns before daylight so as to awaken our neighbors. The bayonet on the gun was broken by carelessness. I will bring the gun to Lexington next week.

Your friend, William Price.

Envelope…Major WM. Dunlap, near Lexington, Ky. By the hand of Thomas Kizen (?) Envelope was made by folding the letter, as was the custom in those days.

I once saw in the genealogical book at Main Library, Louisville, the statement that this musket is in the possession of a descendant of Major Dunlap in Lexington, Ky. Said person was a member of the D.A.R. or S.A.R.

From a newspaper clipping in my possession, we have the following obituary for my paternal grandfather, George Dunlap Hopper.

George Dunlap Hopper. Sr. Goes to Rich Reward
Noble Christian Gentleman, Citizen and Prominent Mason Dies after long illness

“Death is delightful; death is dawn,
‘Tis the beginning of eternal morn.”

The poet who wrote the above lines must have had in mind just such a man, just such a noble character, as was Mr. George D. Hopper, Sr., who passed from life into death on Sunday night. Death held no terrors for him. He had lived a righteous, honorable, clean life and he met his Maker as one who feared not the verdict but as “they who had lived the life and held the faith.”

It was the writer’s pleasure to know Mr. Hopper for well-nigh thirty-five years and for just that long he had admired him and was the happier because of his friendship. It was our pleasure to visit his home before his adversities came, and it was our privilege to be with him frequently after he had become an invalid. It was a benediction and an inspiration to us to see one whose infirmities were so great, always light hearted; always greeting his friends with a smile.

A thoroughly good man, a scrupulously honest one, and a citizen than whom there was none better it is not strange that the community in which he lived so long is bowed in sorrow that Mr. Hopper is no more. A pity it is that one whose influence for good was so great, who had done so much to make others happy, should have to bear the burden of affliction that he did. But it was His will, and Mr. Hopper realizing this, no complaint passed his lips. With him it was: “If it be my Father’s will, that I suffer, I shall bear the pain and murmur not.” How few there are like him; of the salt of the earth was he. We are glad we knew him well; sincerely do we regret that he has passed out from among us. But absent in body, his deeds still live and his memory will be cherished long after the flowers that were planted on his grave by loving hands will have perished. Even after the granite marker over his grave shall have crumbled, will his friends remember him.

“They will keep green his memory;
They will love him still.”

Mr. Hopper was born Oct. 29, 1848 at Lancaster, Ky., and on Oct. 7th, 1875, he was married to Miss Kittie Higgins, who survives him, and who has proved a helpmeet in all the word means. He moved to Stanford in 1869, and embarked into the mercantile business with his brother-in-law, Mr. Asher Owsley. This business experience was both pleasant and profitable, but he wanted to try farming and in 1877 he moved to the farm on the Danville pike just at the bridge over Hawkins’ Branch. In 1902 he gave up farming and returning to Stanford, engaged in the mercantile business again. On Aug. 15, 1907, Mr. Hopper suffered a stroke of paralysis, and since that time he had been confined to his home.

Besides his good wife he leaves the following children, whose affection for father and mother was beautiful to behold. Rev. W. H. Hopper, pastor of the Presbyterian Church at Burnside, Prof. Walter O. Hopper, superintendent of the High School at Mt. Sterling, Miss Margaret Hopper, of the faculty of the Stanford High School, George D. Hopper, who graduated with honors in his class from Central University last June, and Joseph Hopper, who lead his classes in that institution last year. A daughter, Mrs. Mattie Dunlap Stover, died some 15 years ago.

Mr. Hopper was made a Mason in 1870 and was a devout member of that order which he loved next to his church. All of his boys are members of the order. He had been a member of the Presbyterian Church nearly 45 years. For eleven he served as deacon of the Stanford Church and later was ordained as an elder. He was a great church worker and a regular attendant at the services as long as his health would permit.

Many here know good old Rev. Joseph Hopper, of Perryville, whose earnest expounding of gospel truths has led so many souls to Christ. He is brother of Mr. George D. Hopper. Mr. Hopper also leaves a sister, Mrs. Mattie Withers, of Stanford.

The burial will take place this afternoon and Dr. P. L. Bruce is now preaching the funeral service at the late home. The sermon should be an excellent one. Certainly Dr. Bruce could have no better subject. The burial will occur in Buffalo cemetery where hundreds will gather to show their respect and love for the good man. The Masons are in charge of the last rites.

May those who weep soon have their tears dried by the realization that their loss is his eternal gain; that he who suffered in the flesh now basks in the sunshine of the God who gave him. Truly a good man has gone to a rich reward, may his splendid life be an inspiration and his example a help to those of us who are left to sorrow over the loss we have just sustained.

E. C. Walton

And again:

Resolutions by Lincoln Lodge No. 60 F. & A.M.

On Sunday night, August 17, 1913, after six years of invalidism, George D. Hopper breathed out this mortal life. Surrounded by the members of his family, holding the confidence and respect of this entire community, watched by anxious friends and ministered to by loving hands… “God’s finger touched him and he slept.”

He was a loyal friend, a Christian gentleman, of staunchest faith; he was a mason devoted to the tenets of the craft; he was a charter member of Lincoln Lodge No. 60, and, as his brethren who loved and knew him best, the men of Lincoln Lodge inscribe upon its records as his epitaph, “A Charter Member Gloriously Raised.”

J. N. Saunders
D. S. Bromley
Shelton Saufley, Committee.

Joseph was a prolific writer. You can find many of his works at joseph-hopper.com.

Joseph Hopper, my father, grew up in a strong Christian home as is evident from the description of his parents and other relatives. He and my Aunt Margaret Hopper used to reminisce about their happy times as children. Like many others in Presbyterian homes he wrote a letter to the “Christian Observer” which reveals something of his home training:

A BIBLE VERSE EVERY MORNING.

Dear Mr. Converse: I am five years old. I have three brothers. I go to school. I am reading in the second reader. I am in subtraction. I have recited the twenty-third psalm. Please publish my letter. I say a verse every morning. I go to Sunday school. Your little friend,

Joseph Hopper Stanford, Ky.

He must have excelled as a student from the very start, and all the records point to his having an excellent academic record all through his years of education and he also participated in extra-curricula activities. An evening “Declamatory Contest” was held by the Stanford High School at Walton’s Opera House one Friday evening in March while Father was a student. There were nine “declamations” interspersed with musical numbers. Father gave the first “declamation” on the subject “War and Public Opinion.” One wonders how his thoughts on that subject would appeal to the public today!

I have some of his report cards from Centre College and they are a monotonous string of “A"s in every subject so it is not surprising that the commencement program (dated June 11, 1914) lists him as graduating “Magna Cum Laude.” A newspaper clipping from his hometown paper reads…

ANOTHER HOPPER WINS Young Joe Hopper Captures Oratorical Contest

Another Hopper boy of Stanford has won high honor at Central University at Danville. These young men, sons of Mr. and Mrs. George D. Hopper, of this city, are making great records and their many friends are very proud of them. Tuesday’s “Danville Advocate” said: The Annual June Oratorical Contest among the members of the two literary societies of Central University was held in the College Chapel last night at 8 o’clock. There were four speakers and all acquitted themselves most creditably. Mr. Joseph Hopper of Stanford, was awarded the handsome gold medal for the best oration, while Mr. John Jacob Bethurum, of Somerset, won second place….Mr. Joseph Hopper’s subject was: “A Representative American.”

A newspaper reports a “Vacation School” in three churches with a large attendance of interested happy youngsters ranging in age from 6 to 14 years. It is noted that “whispering and throwing spit balls is allowed.” Among the teachers listed is J. Hopper, a college student at that time. About the same time was another event of a different nature:

COLLEGE BOYS MERRY ON “Y” ROOF GARDEN
: Men of Eleven Institutions Vie In Songs and Yells Under the Stars

The biggest night thus far on the Y.M.C.A. roof garden was “college night” last night, when over three hundred people enjoyed a program of college songs, yells, stunts, athletic events and pranks.

The participants represented the following eleven colleges: Purdue, Indiana, Wabash, Kentucky State, Central University, Washington and Lee, University of Tennessee, Transylvania University, Virginia Polytechnic. About forty college young men took part….

The third event was…called “continuous glum” in which the participants endeavored to excel in retaining a gloomy Gus expression. It provoked uproarious hilarity and one after another each of the hard working contestants was obliged to relax his features from latitudinal to longitudinal dimensions… It was won by Hopper in eleven minutes.

Hopper recited a Bostonese version of “Twinkle, twinkle little star.”

The final event was a coat race with four couples participating. Mr. Hopper of Central, Miss Dudley Brown, Mr. Hawkins of Rochester [others named]. The ladies stood at one end of the course, the young men at the other with coats fully buttoned. At the signal to start the young men walked rapidly to their partners and removed their coats, placed them on the young ladies, buttoned them up and returned to the starting point. It was a very exciting event and was won in one minute and fifteen seconds by Mr. Hopper and Miss Brown.

The president of his college gave Father the following handwritten letter of recommendation shortly before his graduation at a time when he must have been considering taking a job as a teacher:

April 30, 1917
Central University of Kentucky
Danville, Ky.
Frederick W. Hinitt, Ph.D., D.D.
President

To Whom it may Concern:

Mr. J. Hopper will graduate from Centre College next June with the degree of Bachelor of Arts. He desires to secure a position as teacher in a High school and it gives me pleasure to give a most cordial endorsement of his ability. His scholarship is sound and thorough. I believe that he will make an excellent disciplinarian. He has an attractive personality, is a man of high character and will exert a good influence in any school. I regard him as an unusually promising man who will make a first-class record in school work. I shall be glad to answer any special questions concerning him.

F. W. Hinett, Pres.

Masonry seems to have had a very large place in the Hopper family, and Father evidently became a mason too, but it is not clear exactly when. He never spoke much about this in later life, and certainly did not keep up his connections with it. Apparently for his own father and others in the family masonry was considered an activity which strengthened their religious faith and commitment and took the place in their lives of civic clubs such as Rotary or Kiwanis today. We do have this undated clipping from a newspaper:

ALL CHAIRS IN LODGE OCCUPIED BY HOPPERS
When Young Joe Hopper Takes His First Degree in Masonry–

A Very Unusual Event

What is said to have been a record in Masonry was established here last Friday night, when Joseph Hopper Jr., had the entered apprentice degree conferred upon him by Lincoln lodge No. 60 of Stanford. On that occasion all of the chairs of the lodge were occupied by members of the Hopper family, who did the work upon the youngest member in most impressive manner.

Walter O. Hopper, of Mt. Sterling, a brother of the candidate was Acting Master; George D. Hopper, Sr., his father, acted as Senior Warden, Geo. D. Hopper, Jr., a brother, acted as Junior Warden. A first cousin, Dr. W. O. Hopper of Perryville, was Senior Deacon, and John Hopper, another first cousin, of Perryville was Junior Deacon. The aged and beloved Rev. Joseph Hopper, an uncle, acted as Chaplain.

It will easily be seen that the Hopper family believes in the principles of Masonry. This prominent family are all Masons, save one.

The ceremonies were simple and impressive throughout and a large attendance of the members was had.

Father prepared for the ministry at the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (1914-1917).¹ We have very little information about his seminary years. One short newspaper clipping states that: “Armenia in Relation to Mohammedanism” was the subject for Missionary Day at the Seminary, Wednesday, March, 15, Dr. R. A. Webb presiding. ‘Armenia in Early Church History’ was discussed by Mr. A. L. McDuffie; ‘Modern Armenian Massacres,’ by Mr. Joseph Hopper, of the student body…”

An article published in a Louisville Seminary bulletin in 1989 gives some insight into student life when Father was there, and one incident in which he was involved which seems totally out of character for him.

PAUL VAN DYKE REMEMBERS SEMINARY LIFE

Dr. Paul Shepherd Van Dyke, the Seminary’s oldest living graduate, recently reminisced about his days at Louisville. “I vividly recall my three best friends at Seminary: John Rood Cunningham, Barney Guerrant, and Joe Hopper. We all sat at the same dining table. We weren’t the most dedicated students and sometimes we went to a sort of vaudeville place on the edge of town. The place wasn’t indecent, but when some of the seniors heard about it, they called us in and advised us that we were engaging in an unsuitable activity. It was pointed out that this was conduct unbecoming of seminary students, so we stopped.

When I arrived in Louisville, I was immediately impressed by the beauty of the Seminary architecture. The grey stone Gothic buildings that surrounded a quadrangle on three sides were lovely. One wing contained dormitory rooms and two faculty apartments; another wing was mostly classrooms and a few dormitory rooms, and the central section housed the dining hall, offices and other classrooms. There were magnificent trees and a lovely lawn. Broadway ran right through the center of the city in front of the Seminary from one end of Louisville to the other and that afforded an easy way to get around. The YMCA and the public library were both within one block…. There was student preaching once a week on Thursday night for middlers and seniors. The juniors came, but they did not preach. After the sermon the faculty really took the sermons apart and put them together again….

Dormitory life was very simple. Most of the men were on scholarships. I believe two were married and we didn’t envy them at all. I received $25.00 a month to cover incidentals, clothing, travel, and any eating out. Honorariums from church preaching were $5.00. It was a completely kind, trusting, caring atmosphere and the fellowship was close.

We had summer work and mine was in “Bloody Breathitt” County in Kentucky, which had a reputation of being the most wracked by feuds. I held services in a school house and lived in a log cabin. The main industry was cutting timber, binding logs into rafts, and floating them to the nearest sawmill…

After seeing the above article, I wrote to Dr. Van Dyke and received the following reply on March 14, 1989, parts of which I quote:

Joe was an exemplary seminarian, excelling in all that was excellent, and an exceptionally well balanced person.

He and I were church history buffs and enjoyed a friendly rivalry in that subject.

I recall the student preaching during our senior year – I put the texts here to save space: Joe’s text: Gal. 6:14; Guerrant’s text: John 1:38, and mine II Cor. 5:14. We all received special commendation from Dr. Hemphill, President and Professor of Homiletics.

I remember that an older brother [William Hopper] of Joe’s was pastor of a church in Louisville when we were in seminary and of attending church there.

Father did some preaching during his seminary days as indicated by the following newspaper clippings (undated):

PREACHED HIS FIRST SERMON

Joseph Hopper, of this city, who is attending the Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, preached his initial sermon Sunday morning. He was sent out to Cave Run church, some fifteen miles from Louisville, where the splendid young man acquitted himself most creditably. Joseph promises to be a fitting successor to that grand old uncle of his, “Cousin” Joseph Hopper, of Perryville, who has been preaching for over sixty years, and whose clear and forceful expounding of gospel truths has caused so many to turn from the ways of the world to lead Christian lives. Joseph’s friends here are expecting big things of him in the Master’s cause and there is every reason to believe that disappointment will not be their portion.

THE LINE FORK

Twelve miles from the railroad, over a big mountain, in Letcher county, on the Virginia border, is a large stream known as the Line Fork. It is thickly settled by a fine type of the Cumberland Highlanders, who have never had the advantages of many other settlements.

Early in the summer, a young man, Mr. S. B. Ghiselin, a teacher in the Marshall Institute of Richmond, Va., came to Kentucky and began work in that secluded settlement. He was most cordially received, and soon had two flourishing Sabbath-schools started, with over one hundred pupils. Though six miles apart, he conducted both, walking most of the time. All through the summer, he visited the homes, and distributed religious literature, gave scores of Gospels to the children and sowed the good seed in many hungry hearts.

Two young preachers, Mr. Jos. Hopper and Mr. William Guerrant, assisted him for ten days, and a number of Highlanders made public profession of faith. There were no Presbyterians in the whole region, and few of any faith but the Primitive Baptists, who received him with true Highland hospitality. There are scores of such places awaiting the labors of the Soul Winners.

Father also took part in some summer camps for young people. A Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Ballard of Glenview had given their summer home “the Cathedral House” for use as a camp for girls, but during one July the “Men’s Club” and “Young Men’s Club” also ran a “Boy’s Club.” Another clipping reports:

Mr. Joseph Hopper of Stanford, who is experienced in Y.M.C.A. camps, arrived in the city last Friday to take charge of the boys’ camp as director., He is being assisted by Mr. Wallace Blakely, a member of the Young Men’s Club, who is swimming instructor. Mr. Hopper has just returned from having charge of a vacation school in Evansville.

The account of his first sermon in his home town church reveals one of his The service of the Presbyterian Church on Sunday morning was of more than ordinary interest. Mr. Joseph Hopper, the youngest member of the family of Mrs. G. D. Hopper, preached for the first time in his home church. The church was well filled with a good number of people representing other communions being present. Mr. Hopper’s sermon was a very appropriate one for the occasion. It was an earnest heart-to-heart talk on the subject of choosing a life work, and was therefore especially helpful to young people. The verse of Scripture chosen was from the Book of Proverbs, third chapter and sixth verse…. Mr. Hopper was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Transylvania at its spring meeting in April. He is a graduate of Centre College and of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky. He bears the name of his revered and beloved “Uncle Joe Hopper…. Turning aside from some more attractive opportunities for service Mr. Hopper has decided to begin his work where the need is greatest, and has accepted a call to a field of Christian usefulness in the Kentucky mountains. His work will be in the counties of Breathitt and Lee. He expects to go to his field of labor this week ordained in the near future.

Father was ordained by West Lexington Presbytery on Oct. 9, 1917. At that time and the next year or so he received a number of calls to various churches. A letter dated July 19, 1918 from David M. Sweets, editor of the Christian Observer,” was written as a representative of the Presbytery to enclose a call to the Mulberry Church which had been found in order. A call dated June 10, 1918 was to the James Lee Memorial Presbyterian Church of Louisville, Ky. He served as pastor of churches in Athol, Canyon Falls, and St. Helens from 1917 to 1918.

The following newspaper clippings indicate that his installation services included evangelistic appeals as well:

Twin Creek Church, Athol (West Lexington Presbytery). Rev. Joseph Hopper was installed pastor of this church on Sunday afternoon, October 14, by a commission of West Lexington Presbytery. Rev. W. B. Guerrant, Rev. A. L. McDuffie, and Ruling Elder Joseph Newland, of Jackson, composed the commission. The morning hours were given over to the holding of a Sunday school institute. During the day’s services six persons united with the church on profession of faith and were baptized.

Canyon Falls (West Lexington Presbytery). On October 11, 12, and 13 a community meeting was held here, attended by several hundred persons. Ruling Elder W. K. Massie, of the First Church, Lexington, presented a large flag to the school and several other addresses were made by Rev. J. W. Tyler DD, Thomas B. Talbot, Lieutenant Governor Black and others. On the evening of October 14, Rev. Joseph Hopper was installed pastor of the church appointed by the Presbytery.

St. Helens (West Lexington Presbytery). On Sunday, October 21, Rev. Joseph Hopper was installed pastor of the St. Helens Church.

Rev. Wm. Cumming preached and charged the pastor and Ruling Elder Thomas B. Talbot charge the people. At the close of the service one young man made profession of faith and was baptized.

During those days we have some newspaper clippings telling of his preaching. They are undated and cannot be produced in any kind of chronological order.

Corbin, Ky. Last Sunday morning and at night Rev. Joseph Hopper, of Louisville, preached two splendid sermons to an unusually large congregation at both services. Rev. Hopper is of consecrated Presbyterian ancestors, and though young in years has the bearing and delivery of an experienced minister. We regard him as one of the most promising young preachers in the Southern Presbyterian church, and one of whom any congregation may well be proud to claim as a pastor.

Shoulder Blade, Breathitt County. On September 14, the annual Sunday School Institute of this field was held at Shoulder Blade. Those who took part in the program were, Mr. T. B. Talbot, who presided; Dr. J. W. Tyler, Rev. and Mrs. W. B. Guerrant, Rev. Joseph Hopper, Judge Mann of Elkatawa, Miss Holcomb of Highland School, Mrs. Patsy Turner of Canoe, and Miss Ashford of Shoulder Blade…

Thanksgiving in the Mountains (West Lexington Presbytery). On Thursday, November 29, an all-day Thanksgiving program was given at the Mill branch school house near Athol, Breathitt county. In the forenoon there were special exercises by the pupils of the Sunday school, an address on Sunday school work by Mr. T. B. Talbot, who presided, and a Thanksgiving sermon by Rev. Joseph Hopper…

Shoulder Blade, Breathitt County. Shoulder Blade is one of the places where Rev. W. B. Guerrant has been preaching regularly since last summer and where are located two of the most efficient lady missionaries… On Sunday, March 21, a commission of West Lexington Presbytery met at the place and organized a church…with a charter membership of sixty-five…

The officers of the church were then elected. . . (The Sunday School in the afternoon) was followed by the installation of Rev. W. B. Guerrant as pastor of the church. Rev. Joseph Hopper presided, preached the sermon, and propounded the constitutional questions…

West Lexington Presbytery. The spring meeting of West Lexington Presbytery, at Versailles, was brought to a close on Wednesday evening with an interesting and inspiring conference on the home mission work of the Presbytery. Most of the home mission work of the Presbytery is in the mountain counties of eastern Kentucky Three young ministers from this field, Messrs. McDuffie, Guerrant and Hopper took part in the program… The new church recently organized at Shoulder Blade, which has a new building completed and paid for, starts out with a membership of seventy-five, and gives promise of becoming a strong, aggressive church.

Thomas Talbott, the Sunday-school missionary, and his little son had a narrow escape from drowning while crossing the Kentucky river, in Lee county, Thanksgiving day, says a dispatch. The boat in which they were crossing the stream struck a concealed snag in the river and Mr. Talbott and his son were thrown overboard in deep water. Rev. Hopper, who happened to be in the boat with them, went to the rescue of the struggling father and son and undoubtedly saved one of them from drowning. As it was they escaped with cold baths. Rev. Hopper is youngest son of Mrs. Kittie Hopper of this city, who is making his mark as a mountain pastor and evangelist.

For a short time in 1919 and early 1920 Father was “stated supply” or “acting pastor” of the Highland Church of Louisville in 1919. Evidently the pastor of that church died during the summer and Father was asked to continue there. A letter of Mr. Thacker of Lexington, Ky. to Father dated Aug. 30 1919 indicates that he was called to a church in that area too, but Father replied:

I certainly would delight to jump into this Lexington field, and would do so except for the situation at the Highland church. The providential leadings seem to indicate that I remain at Highland. At a meeting of the Highland session Sunday, Dr. Lyons said words to this effect: “The captain has fallen. The lieutenant is on the field. It would be a calamity for the work not to be carried forward.”

This must have been quite a change from the home mission work he had been doing. During that time he apparently applied for appointment as a foreign missionary and, in order to prepare himself further, he went to what was then called the White’s Biblical Seminary in New York.

We have one interesting item about him in September: a small card which reads as follows:

Kindly admit Rev. Joseph Hopper to informal meeting with PRESIDENT WILSON at Hotel Henry Watterson, (Auditorium) at 2:30 o’clock, Sunday afternoon, September 28, 1919.

Commission on International Friendship and Good Will of the Churchmen’s Federation.

Whether or not he attended this function, I do not know.

Of far more lasting importance that year was his meeting with Annis Barron of Rock Hill, South Carolina. She was also attending White’s Biblical Seminary in preparation to serve under the United Presbyterian Mission as a teacher of missionary children in Egypt. She belonged to the A.R.P. (Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church). She and Father found themselves with a similar calling in life, fell in love and were engaged. Father must have had a busy time if he was simultaneously studying at this seminary, supplying the Highland Church in Louisville, and courting Mother! They often told us how Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Reynolds who had been missionaries in Korea since 1892 (the year Father was born) helped Father choose his engagement ring for Mother. They were married on Dec. 18, 1919 in Rock Hill and more description of this event will be given in connection with my account of Mother’s family. They began preparations for going to Korea immediately.

West Lexington Presbytery. On Monday, January 26, an all-day meeting in the interest of missions was held in the First Presbyterian church, Lexington. The program was arranged by Mr. Thos. B. Talbot, who presided.

Mrs. Patsy Turner, of our mountain mission work, told of her work at Canoe Mrs. Cockerham, president of Kentucky Synodical, gave a little talk on “Montreat.”… .The closing address of the day was made by Rev. Joseph Hopper, a member of West Lexington Presbytery, who served in our mountain mission field for about two years. His subject was, “From the Mountains to Korea . " He and Mrs. Hopper expect soon to sail for Korea as foreign missionaries, to be supported by members of the Highland Presbyterian Church.

In February of 1920 the bride and groom sailed for Korea. The “Great Northwestern Telegram” office of Vancouver, B.C. Canada indicates their departure:

1920 Feb. 24 3:33 PM (From) Louisville, Ky. (To) Rev. Jos Hopper

Care Steamer Empress of Japan to arrive Vancouver, B.C.

Students of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky wish you and your wife God speed on your voyage. May God’s richest blessing abide with you in all your missionary activities.

Upon arrival in Korea they were assigned to Mokpo, on the southwestern tip of the peninsula. From a newspaper clipping we read:

Mrs. Kate Egbert is in receipt of a splendid letter from her cousin, Joseph Hopper, a Presbyterian missionary to Korea, which is full of interest. He and wife are located in pleasant, modern quarters at Mokpo, a city of 20,000 inhabitants, composed of both ancient and modern civilization, having waterworks, telephone, telegraph and wireless communication, electric lights, etc. the local church has 250 members; Sunday school 400 members; only one Protestant mission to combat with 600,000 people, but Mr. Hopper seems quite enthusiastic and when he masters their language will be assigned a charge. Both he and his wife are well pleased with their surroundings.

That report is rather amusing in the light of what we know of their home which was not exactly “pleasant, modern quarters” and had no electricity until some ten years later. I doubt that in later years Father would ever assume that the Korean language could be “mastered.”

Several articles by my parents were published in “The Missionary Survey,” during 1920 and 1921 parts of which are quoted here:

A UNIQUE PREPARATORY COMMUNION SERVICE Rev. Joseph Hopper

The preparatory communion service about which I am to tell you may well be called unique because of the place in which it was held, the people who were present, and the program of the service.

This service was held in a church and in a community quite different from the place where I attended my last preparatory communion service in America early in January. At that time I was in the Hawes Memorial Building of the Highland Presbyterian Church, Louisville, Ky. Since then, however, I have come to a foreign county, and my first meeting of this character here was in the leper church of Kwangju, Korea. The Kwangju home for lepers has at present 310 inmates. The Southern Presbyterian Church has a strong organization at the Kwangju leper home, the leper church having a membership of over 100. As this church is a part of Mr. (J. V. N.) Talmage’s parish he asked me to go with him on Wednesday night, April 7th, and preach to the lepers at their preparatory communion service.

Upon my first arrival in Kwangju on March 24th, I felt a little hesitance in going in the neighborhood of a leper, but was soon assured by Dr. (R. M.) Wilson that with the necessary precautions I need not fear. I was glad, therefore to go with Mr. Talmage to this leper service. The church building has recently been erected, and is a well arranged, attractive- looking structure.

When the hour for the service had come, the church was filled with about 250 lepers. They were not nearly so repulsive as I had imagined. They were neatly dressed, and looked happy and cheerful. They seemed ready to enter into the spirit of worship, many of them having their own Bibles and hymn-books. They looked so very different from the poor lepers we see begging on the roadside, who have never been physically nor spiritually cleansed.

As the service began, a strange and wonderful feeling came over me. I had never seen that many people at a preparatory communion service before–and they were Korean lepers! What an inspiration it was to hear them sing.

“O, for a thousand tongues to sing, My great Redeemer’s praise, The glories of my Lord and King, The triumphs of his grace.”

The words were foreign to me, but not the tune, nor the spirit in which they sang it. Like the Samaritan leper of old they with a loud voice were glorifying God, and giving Him thanks. With prayer, song, and Scripture reading the service continued. In response to a question of Mr. Talmage, six of the lepers said they were ready to recite the Shorter Catechism, and a number of others the Child’s Catechism. Many who had recently been admitted into the home showed by their skill in finding and reading Scripture verses that they had learned to read since their arrival. I had been told before that they were excellent Bible students, but their answers at this time simply astounded me. Had I been a school teacher, I could easily have given them a grade of 95 per cent on this impromptu examination. . . .After they had answered such questions, I realized that the Korean church has its Bereans, that it might truthfully be said of these lepers too, “Now these. . .received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily whether these things were so.”

The sermon which followed was my first sermon to a Korean congregation. It was a wonderful privilege given me to witness for Christ in the uttermost part of the earth, especially to a congregation of this character. I felt that Christ’s commission was being heeded in a special way in that the poor were having the gospel preached to them. The Holy Spirit was evidently present. The lepers gave excellent attention, following closely Mr. Talmage, who interpreted the message to them.

From the August 1921 “Missionary Survey.” A card from Rev. Joseph Hopper makes the following announcement: “Mrs. Hopper and I are rejoicing over the arrival of a son–Joseph Barron Hopper–who was born on May 17th. We are glad this little missionary arrived on the field just at this time of sore need, for he will be able to render a big service in cheering the hearts of missionaries and natives while waiting for the reinforcements that are coming out to help in the work this summer.”

ON THURSDAY, June 11, 1936, the hopes of many long years were realized. We became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian Church; we recovered, at last, the blessing of true Christian fellowship. What a joyous moment it was! How the long years of struggle seemed to sink into nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts!

To the world, indeed, it might seem to have been not a happy moment but a sad one. Separation from the church of one’s fathers; a desperate struggle ahead, with a tiny little group facing the hostility of the world and the still more bitter hostility of the visible church-what possible joy or comfort can be found in such things as these?

Yet to us it was a happy and a blessed moment despite all. You see, we do not look upon these matters as the world looks upon them. We ground our hopes not upon numbers or upon wealth but upon the exceeding great and precious promises of God. I f our opponents despise us as being but a tiny little group, we remember the words of Scripture:

“There is no restraint to the Lord, to save by many or by few.” If we are tempted to be discouraged because of our lack of material resources, we say, again in the words of Scripture: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.”

It is indeed only a little group at the beginning, this “Presbyterian Church of America”; but I think we can hear our Saviour say to us as to the rest of His true Church throughout the world: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

About one thing, at least, our consciences are clear as we enter into the warmth and joy of this true Christian fellowship. We have not escaped into that warmth and joy without making an earnest effort to bring about a reform of the church organization in which we formerly stood.

Our solemn ordination pledge required us to be “zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity and peace of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition” may arise unto us on that account. We have tried to fulfil that pledge. We have tried to bring about a return of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. from Modernism and indifferentism to the Bible and the Church’s constitution.

I do not mean that our effort has been perfect. On the contrary, we have to confess to many terrible sins in the course of the long struggle. What a fearful sin of omission it was, for example, that an effort was not made in 1924, in every single presbytery in which any of us stood, to brine the Auburn Affirmationists to trial! But I do mean that we have not just followed the line of least resistance. We have not separated from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. before it became abundantly clear that it was not God’s will that that church should be reformed.

What a long struggle it has been! My thoughts turn back, as I thank God for the peace and joy of the present hour, to the past phases of the conflict.

How sad was my heart at the first General Assembly which I attended, the General Assembly of 1920! I knew of course even before I attended that Assembly that the Church was corrupt but the extent of its corruption, as then revealed, came to me with a great shock. The Assembly discussed dollar and cents at great length, but would not allow even one minute of debate upon the Plan of Organic Union which undermined the faith of the Church at its roots. The Plan was sent down to the presbyteries without debate.

The Plan was defeated in the presbyteries and the inevitable division was postponed. Then came the Fosdick struggle, and the evangelical pronouncement by the General Assembly of 1923. Then the election of Dr. Macartney in 1924. It was the only evangelical General Assembly that we have had in all these years. There was no comprehensive program of reform, and when the miserable compromising decision of the Permanent Judicial Commission in the Fosdick case was read the evangelical majority in the Assembly disintegrated in a general rush to the sleeping-cars. Then, with Dr. Erdman’s election in 1925 the Modernist-indifferentist machine took control again and has tightened its control with every successive year thereafter. The Auburn Affirmation, the Erdman “Commission of Fifteen” of 1925-1927, giving the Auburn Affirmationists everything that they desired, the destruction of Princeton Seminary in 1926-1929, the period of false and wicked “peace”, the Laymen’s Inquiry in 1932, the forming of The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions in 1933, the “Mandate” in 1934, the final triumph of Modernist tyranny in 1936-these have been some of the phases in the conflict.

It has been a triumph of unbelief and sin in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. If we mince words about that, we are committing terrible sin ourselves. But God has made the wrath of men to praise Him, and is working out His Holy purposes. With what lively hope does our gaze turn now to the future! At last true evangelism can go forward without the shackle of compromising associations. The fields are white to the harvest. The evangelists are ready to be sent. Who will give the funds needed to send them out with their message of peace?

As the service began, a strange and wonderful feeling came over me. I had never seen that many people at a preparatory communion service before—and they were Korean lepers! What an inspiration to hear them sing.

O, for a thousand tongues to sing,
My great Redeemer’s praise,
The glories of my Lord and King,
The triumphs of his grace.

The words were foreign to me, but not the tune, nor the spirit in which they sang it.

My grandfather, Joe B. Hopper, became a missionary to Korea in 1948. He wrote:

Some of the happiest experiences have been in churches where all the members have leprosy. More than once I have served communion to men like this where the bread had to be placed in palm of his hand because he had no fingers with which to pick it up, and where the cup had to be held to his lips for the same reason!

Doesn’t this illustrate what our Saviour has done for a dreadfully sick world, doomed to die, separated by the disease of sin from the presence of the Heavenly father?

I once heard of one of these people at the Wilson Leprosy Colony who publicly thanked God for giving him this dread disease because otherwise he might never have been cared for in a mission hospital and heard of the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Elsewhere he wrote of the great love of the lepers for the Word of God:

In Korea it has been my privilege to help start churches in about a half dozen villages where all the people have the dread disease of leprosy. Because few others dare help them or love them, the appreciation and response of these lepers is beyond description. A couple of years ago, while visiting one such colony, a blind leper besought me: “Cho Moksa, hear my petition. Get me some Braille scriptures so I can learn to read the Word of God.”

The Bible Society supplied the Braille Scriptures in Korean. We were able to get a young student in a school for the blind about 15 miles away to come and spend his summer vacation teaching Braille to the blind leper. Now that blind leper can read the Bible, and then in turn is teaching other blind lepers whose fingers are in such condition that they can learn to read. Isn’t this a case of “the blind leading the blind?”

Last summer when I visited their church I found a dozen or so blind lepers in the church one afternoon. I discovered it was the Scripture memory class held every week-day afternoon. “What are you learning?” I asked.

“We are on the seventh chapter of Acts, having started from the beginning.”

“What else have you learned?”

“We have memorized all of the book of Revelation, all of one of the Gospels, all of the johannine letters, and the Shorter Catechisms.”

These people have learned the word of God not only for their own spiritual nourishment but so they may share it with others.

We in the same manner celebrate the goodness of God, which carried our Reformation to such a high pitch of perfection, with respect to our Government and Worship, and delivered them from all that vain pomp which darkened the glory of the Gospel service, and the whole of those superstitious or insignificant inventions of an imaginary decency and order, which sullied the divine beauty and luster of that noble simplicity that distinguished the devotions of the apostolical times. And our Church glories in the primitive plainness of her worship, more than in all the foreign ornaments borrowed from this world, though these appear indeed incomparably more charming to earthly minds.

We are sensible that it is a necessary consequence of the nature of our Reformation in these particulars, that there is nothing left in our worship which is proper to captivate the senses of mankind, or amuse their imaginations. We have no magnificence and splendor of devotion to dazzle the eye, nor harmony of instrumental music to enliven our worship, and soothe the ears of the assembly. Pomp, and show, and ceremony, are entirely strangers in our churches; and we have little in common with that apostate Church, whose yoke we threw off at the Reformation, or with the exterior greatness and magnificence of the Jewish temple and its service.

For which reason, we know we must lay our account to be despised by the men of this world, who value nothing that is stripped of the allurements of sense, and fancy that a rich and gaudy dress contributes to the majesty, and raises the excellency, of religious service,—who seek for the same dazzling pomp and splendid appearances to recommend their worship, which they are so fond of in their equipage and tables,—and think that a veneration and respect to the service of the Church is to be raised by the same methods that procure an esteem and fondness for a Court. We have nothing to tempt persons of such inclinations ;—we know they will entertain the meanest thoughts, and most disdainful notions, of a worship too plain and homely for them, and fit only for the rude and unmannerly multitude, who have not a delicate enough taste of what is truly great and noble.

But how much soever upon this account we may be despised by the great and the learned, the Church of Scotland, we hope, will always publicly own the simplicity and plainness of her worship as her peculiar glory ; and believe, that these, to a spiritual eye, are beautified with a luster which external objects are incapable of, and of too elevated a nature for the senses to look at. She is not ashamed to acknowledge her sentiments—that the devotions of Christians stand in no need of the outward helps afforded to the Jews,—and that the triumphs of all-conquering love, the mighty acts of a Redeemer, all the powers and glories of an immortal life, that are represented to our wonder and meditation under the Gospel, are far nobler springs of devotion, and fitter to animate with a cheerful zeal, and inspire the most fervent affections, than the meaner helps afforded under the law,—— the costliness of pontifical garments,—the glory of a magnificent temple,—the ceremony of worship,—and the power of music.

Our Church believes it to be one design of the better Reformation of things, to raise the Christian worshipers above the airy grandeur of sense; and instead of a laborious service, to introduce a worship worthy of the Father of spirits, that should be truly great and manly, the beauty and the power of which should be spirit and life, and which, instead of a servile imitation of the temple, should be all purified reason and religion, and make the nearest approaches to the devotion of the heavenly state, where “there is no temple."

And how despicable soever this may appear to earthly minds, and distasteful to the senses, that are pleased with show and appearance, we are not afraid to own, that we believe that an imitation of our blessed Redeemer and his Apostles, in the plainness and spirituality of their devotions, and an endeavor to copy after the example of these truly primitive times, will ever bear us up to all the just decency and order of the Gospel Church; and that, in conformity to this the naked simplicity of our worship is beautified with a superior luster, and shines with a brightness that is more worthy of it, than when dressed in the gayest colors, and busked up with the richest and most artful ornaments of human fancy and contrivance.

The Great Apostasy — II Thessalonians 2:3 — J. Hershey Longenecker — 1966

Once upon a time a group of men at a Church conference were approached by a very earnest man who asked them one by one, Do you believe that Jesus Christ is coming back today? The first one answer, “I think not.” The second man gave the same answer, “I think not.” Likewise the third and fourth and every one until the last answered with the same words, “I think not.” Then the questioner looked at them solemnly and said, “Think it over. The Lord Jesus said, ‘In such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.’”

Is Jesus Christ coming again? Jesus and the New Testament writers say that He is coming again. And Jesus warned us to be ready for His coming. He said, Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as yet think not the Son of Man cometh.

If you were asked today, Do you think Jesus is coming again any time soon?, would you answer, I think not? Multitudes would give that answer today. Some people do not believe He will ever come. That is an awful mistake.

Jesus Christ is coming again. He said He would. His coming is the Blessed Hope of His people. When we stand by the graves of our loved ones we can rejoice. When Jesus comes again they will be raised from the dead, and they and we shall go with Him to His Home forever.

The Church in Thessalonica had a problem. It seems that there were rich and generous Christians in that Church. They gave liberally to the Church, and the Church gave liberally to the poor. But there were lazy people who would not work. They were waiting for the Second coming of Christ, or that at least is what they said. So Paul in his second letter to Thessalonica spoke sharply about this. “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. II Thess. 3:10-12

In I Thess. 1:10 Paul had written them about waiting for God’s Son from heaven, when He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered is from the wrath to come, but Paul did not mean for them to sit and wait, but to work and wait for the coming of Christ.

In II Thess. 2:3 Paul tell about a falling away, an apostasy. Which would come before the day of Christ. That day shall not come, he says, except there come a falling away first. And that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

If we keep our eyes and ears open we will observe that in this year of our Lord 1966 we are right in the midst of a fearful falling away from Christ. Many Christians are not aware of the fact that the New Testament has long predicted such falling away. About 60 years ago believing Christian were disturbed by a dangerous trend in the Church. A certain Episcopal lawyer had been a worldly-minded Church member, just a nominal Christian. He was converted and began, with his brilliant mind, to study the Bible. Then he wrote and published a number of books, one of them bearing the title, THE GREAT APOSTASY SET IN. That book by Philip Maure fell into my hands in my teens, about 60 years ago. It impressed me so much that I have remembered the title and the name of the author all these years.

The book was based on our text for this morning, II Thess. 2:3. That day, the day of Christ, shall not come, except there come a falling away first.This term, falling away, is a translation of the Greek word, apostasia. For many years earnest Christians have been concerned about a falling away in the Church. The apostasy has been growing. The present to GOD IS DEAD theory, one of the craziest ideas even advanced in the name of religion, is perhaps the extreme limit to which unbelief can go. Very clearly the great apostasy which had already started 60 years ago, has been developing ever since.

But true Christians need not doubt nor fear. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of our Lord Jesus. Nevertheless the conflict between faith and unbelief becomes hotter as the days come and go, and it is well for us to recognize the present apostasy as a probable indication of the approach of the second coming of Christ. The day of Christ shall not come except there come a falling away first, that is, unless there is a great apostasy. Certainly the Lord’s return is nearer than it ever was before. So we shall do well to remember the urgent advice of our Lord and Savior. “Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh.”

The Church of our Lord Jesus Christ has fallen upon perilous times. Too many church members are Christians in name only, but not in heart. So the Church is weak in its most important work of winning souls to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Instead of working diligently at the Lord’s business, they love the world and the things of the world, and their religion takes second or third place in their lives. In 1 John we are told, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

I am not by disposition a fighter. I hate war. I do not like prize fights or football games. They are too rough. Therefore I have shrunk away from bible texts that stress the thoughts of conflict. Having descended from generations of Pennsylvania Dutch Mennonites, and partly under Quaker influence. I have learned toward the side of the pacifists. I used to think I couldn’t fight. But aboard ship going to Africa for the first time I had a surprising dream. It was a small freight ship. The passenger cabins had low ceilings which were nothing but the iron floor of the deck above. Mignon[2] slept in the lower berth and I had the upper. The iron deck was to close to my bunk. One night I dreamed that some man had insulted my beloved wife. Suddenly I gave him a powerful punch right in the jaw, and found that his jaw was the iron deck and I had nearly broken my knuckles. So I learned that there must be some fight in my personality after all.

During the past year, the most painful time of my life. I have not been preaching. But I have suffered in observing what headway the great apostasy is making among churches, throughout the land. It hurt me to know of the apostasy in other denominations of the Lord’s people. But it came home to me with even greater force when I realized that the apostasy is growing in unexpected ways on our own Southern Presbyterian Church. As a result certain verses of the New Testament have been speaking to my heart and calling me a coward.

Listen to these three examples. Verses 3 of the brief epistle of Jude says: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” To earnestly contend was just the thing I did now wish to do. But the verse made me feel like a coward.

Second come the advice of Paul to Timothy: (I Tim. 6.12) “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life.” If you read the context you will note that this was not to fight in a spirit of anger or hatred, for Paul says to follow faith, love, patience, meekness. But fighting in a spirit of love and meekness is probably harder than to fight in a spirit of hatred. But one way or another, I do not like contention.

Third example is what Paul says of himself as he nears the end of the read: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course. I have kept the faith.” When said these words he was not referring to child’s play. He meant that he had really fought. He was doing what Jude recommended. He was earnestly contending for the faith. Notice what he wrote to the Galatians: (Gal. 1.6-9) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel into you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." To the Corinthians Paul wrote: “So fight I, not as one that beateth the air.” Paul was intensely in earnest about fighting the good fight of faith.

To avoid the charge of cowardice from my own conscience I have been compelled to make a serious decision. Because of the great apostasy which has become a threat to the future of our Church I must fight the good fight of faith. I must contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. And that is the reason for this sermon this morning. Some of you may know that I was received as a licentiate for the ministry of the Presbytery of Transylvania in 1913, and that I was ordained as a minister of the Presbyterian Church by the Presbytery of Louisville fifty years ago last May. When I come to the Catechisms of this Church, and found in them the statement of the faith of our fathers, the faith once delivered unto the saints. In the Book of Church Order I found the system of government which I believe to be in accord with the Word of God. At my ordination I made certain vows. One of them was this: I agonized to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace of the Church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto me on that account. I came to the Southern Presbyterian Church because it was known as a conservative Church. I was then a theological conservative. After more than fifty years I am still a theological conservative. And I believe that a large majority of our Church members also are still conservative. But with the development of the Great Apostasy during these years some of our ministers, and some members, have become what are known as liberals.

The Presbyterian Survey, our official Church magazine, for June 1966 has a two column editorial which begins like this: “If you like labels, you can call the 106th General Assembly ‘liberal’ — and perhaps the most liberal in the history of the Presbyterian Church U.S.” Another quote: “Only one vote on a major issue broke the pattern of liberal domination…..” Again quote: “But on the heels of that vote came a rather surprising reversal of Assembly sentiment: an overwhelming vote to begin participating in the Consultation on Church Union with the UPUSA, Episcopalians, Methodists, and other denominations.”

Until this decision by our Assembly we were not committed to enter the COCU[3]. We merely appointed observes to attend meetings and report back to our Assembly. But the best I can understand it, the present action commits our Church to enter union about like an engagement ring ties a boy and girl together as candidates for marriage. We are not yet married, but if we withdraw from the engagement same would held as responsible for breach of promise.

The Survey editorial already cited said in regard to a number of decisions of this Assembly, “We took a great leap forward in this Assembly,” said a young commissioner from Texas,……. “But it finally had to be this way because we younger men have been waiting a long time — and at this Assembly we were organized and prepared and we had good leadership.”

The COCU participation proposal was unexpected by many of the commissioners. They were not ready for it. I feel as if we have been caught in a snare. I hope that God in His love and wisdom will lead our Church to withdraw before it is too late.

Again I quote from the Survey editorial, “After the 106th (General Assembly) came to an end, an agency staff member commented that he had never seen so much activity by non-commissioners, helping to plan strategy ‘like a political convention.’”

The theory of our church courts from General Assembly down to the local Church Session used to be that we prayed for and earnestly sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making decisions for the Church. I fear that the Holy Spirit cannot be held responsible for some of the decisions made on our Assembly this year.

I have here two small books which were sent to ministers with a circular letter addressed to THE MINISTERS, SESSION AND MEMBERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, U.S. These books may be ordered for 25¢ each. The Assembly’s Ad-Interim Committees says, “We urge you to study both these books, discuss with your fellow members and by your comments help us to discharge the duties the General Assembly has laid upon us.” It would be impossible for a person of my age to serve as an authority on the contents of these books. But I felt it my duty to mention this matter of Church Union as in my opinion having same relation to the Great Apostasy.

How could Church Union have any relation to falling away from Christ? You cannot take all the creeds of all these churches, all their beliefs and unbeliefs, and throw them into a melting pot and after stirring well pour out of the pot a creed that would satisfy the consciences of millions of members. Some would want the Holy Spirit left out, some would reject the Virgin Birth of Christ, some would deny the miracles etc. etc. The union would result in divisions without end. How can two walk together unless they agreed? Many of the foundations of our faith would have to be compromised. But after we have been swallowed up and lost our Presbyterian heritage, what could we do about it? Some would preach salvation by grace. Others would insist on salvation by good works. There would be perpetual arguments which could never bring the world to salvation. I believe if the Lord Jesus were with us today He would say: “That which thou already hast, hold fast until I come.”

There is great danger that while the Lord’s people are engaged in efforts to get all Christians to believe the same thing, the Lord Jesus may return, and many would be ready.

Our time has gone, and I must close. Let me summarize what I have tried to say:

1. Jesus Christ is coming again. It is a sure thing.
2. His coming will be preceded by a great falling away, a great apostasy.
3. We are not in the midst of a great falling away from Christ.
4. Some signs of such apostasy are these:
   • All sorts of worldliness have been welcomed into Christian hearts and homes through newspapers, books, magazines, movies, radio, television, and social life of forms that the Lord Jesus would surely condemn, as He condemned the adulteress Jezebel who was seducing the Church at Thyatira.
   • There is a fearless and determined war against the Bible as the Word of God.
   • Some supposedly Christian teachers have thrown overboard all of the ten commandments.
   • Colleges that were build with Church money have been overcome by demands for academic freedom, so some of them contain atheists who tear down both the faith and the morality of their students.
   • Even our own Church magazine is so liberal as to ask patient treatment for the theory that God is dead, and to give a pat-on-the-back to a great university of another denomination for harboring those who propagate the frightful theory.

This may well be the last sermon I will ever preach in this pulpit, or anywhere else, for that matter. A man of of 77 lives on borrowed time. I hope you will remember that the Lord Jesus is coming again. And the judgment Day is surely coming. Are you ready to meet your Lord?

I beg you every one to remember the words of the Lord Jesus: Therefore be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh.

The strongest Christianity, I think, is consistent Christianity; and consistent Christianity is found in the Reformed Faith.

— J. Gresham Machen (@jg_machen) March 1, 2017

An earnest young Korean deacon from the country came to me one day with a problem. “We have a 500 pound bomb; can you tell us how to cut it in two to make church bells?”

I replied, “Where is the bomb, and how did you get it?”

“Five years ago the Americans dropped it on a bridge outside our village, but it didn’t explode. We have brought it to Chonju.”

“How did you bring it to the city?” I asked.

“On the bus, of course. It was so big and heavy we had to pay two fairs for it, and even so it smashed the bus steps when we took it off!”

“Was the bomb unloaded?”

“No, we screwed the thing off one end, but we couldn’t get the inside stuff out.”

This was the kind of “hot potato” to pass on in a hurry, so I told him to take it to Korean Army Headquarters, have it unloaded, and then cut it into with a hacksaw. When I saw him the next day, I asked if the army had unloaded the bomb.

“Oh no! We didn’t want to bother them. We found a man who knew how to cut the bomb in two. We kept pouring water on it and sawed it right in two. It was full of little white pellets, and they say we can sell them to fishermen to explode under water to stun fish, and that will pay for having our church bells made!”

Dorothy Anne Longenecker was born to Minnie H. Hauhart, a Methodist from Missouri and J. Hershey Longenecker, a Mennonite from Pennsylvania. Dorothy’s parents were married in Missouri in September of 1915. Her father attended Louisville Seminary where he became a “Presbyterian by conviction” before graduation. (This was also the seminary where her father-in-law, Dr. Joseph Hopper attended.)

In 1917 Dorothy’s parents departed from New York to the Congo despite the fact that the ship before theirs had been sunk by a German submarine. It took four months of travel to arrive at Luebo, where in 1919 Dorothy’s sister, Alice was born during the flu epidemic. Lusambo, a freight depot on a river, had to be kept open; so, the Longeneckers volunteered to maintain this station. Dorothy was born on March 26, 1920. Her mother had just served tea to guests whom her daddy then escorted to a river boat at 2 PM, and she was born by 5:30.. A black missionary nurse, Mrs. Althea Edminston, a graduate of Fisk University, was present; later Mrs. Edminston worked for 16 years preparing a “high-perfect” grammar textbook of the Bakuba language. Mrs. Edminston’s husband was a minister and evangelistic missionary. Dot’s daddy, who had rather for a boy, wrote a poem about “Dorothy Anne, daddy’s little man.” Dorothy was baptized by one her parents’ beloved Congo pastors. It was customary for missionary parents at that time to leave their children in the States with relatives before returning to Africa, which was considered the “white man’s graveyard” when in 1922 the Longenecker parents were to return to their work, they could not to bear to leave Alice and Dot behind; so took their little girls back to Congo. This time they were assigned to live at Bibanga which is where Dot has her first memories.

A younger sister was born but died at six-weeks-of-age when Dot was four. Because natives could not afford the cost of a wooden coffin, her parents decided that their baby, too, would be buried in the usual straw mat. At the time of the funeral, Dot remembers sitting pulling grass blades as they sang, “In the Sweet Bye and Bye, We Shall Meet on that Beautiful Shore.” Years later Dot learned from her aged daddy that her mother had often gone to the little grave and wept. She recalls her mother being quite ill at the time of her little sister’s birth. But there were happy memories of weaver birds and palm trees on the hill near where they lived in a mud and stick house with a grass roof, similar to the one in Lusambo where she was born. When weaver birds were necessarily shot to protect the palms, she and Alice carefully had funerals of them. For four years the little girls prayed for a baby brother. When Dot was 7 years old, their brother, Jim, was born. They were so pleased that he belonged to them that they were very selfish about him at first, until some of the care became a chore, so they decided to share some of the “duties” such as pushing his stroller.

Her mother had been the youngest of ten children. Aunts sent the little missionary girls dolls that would cry. Mail was brought 30 miles by a man with a sack on his back. As the mailman was coming through the forest, he shifted the sack and the dolls began to cry. He dropped it and fled knowing that there were evil spirits after him! Others had to retrieve the mailbag with the crying dolls inside. The sisters had heard about operations from Dr. Kellersberger for whom Mr. Longenecker was building a hospital. Native Women hearing tales about the crying dolls came to visit Mrs. Longenecker and requested to hear the cries, but alas, the dolls had been operated on by the “make-believe doctors” and their “cry-boxes” removed. These same little girls loved to climb what they named “ticket trees” and their daddy made them a slide that remains in her memory, as does a hammock-trip visiting Christians in the hill country for several days. One dawn they were awakened and taken next door to view a dead python which during the night had slid into the goat-house next door. It had one baby goat in its tummy and one within his mouth when it was shot.

Their furlough four years later was spent near Manchester, Missouri, on the family farm while her parents tended to missionary itineration. She was not yet old enough for school but attended with Alice, and then, as she put it chuckling, “I must be the only child that had to repeat first grade”.

What mish-kid doesn’t have memories of motion sickness! It can last a long time when the route to Africa took you to Europe, then down the West coast of Africa. Her daddy was appointed to run the Mission Press at Luebo. The Christian paper was so important he felt it should be published monthly, so he was given the job at Luebo where their family remained the rest of her time in Africa. Later Dot’s husband, Dr. Joe Hopper, ran the mission press in Korea.

She and Alice had a good time once helping search for a baby crocodile which had been given the missionaries next door but got away. They had a “whooping cough party.” At times they owned a pet parrot or monkey. One day the girls were playing under a lemon tree when their dad sent a man to call them. It was not their desire to go, so Alice threw a lemon at the man and they did not obey. At the time the discipline seemed very severe on everyone for Alice was kept home from a birthday party, a big event on the mission field, but their daddy reminded them that they had not come to Africa to throw things at anyone, but to share Christ. The lesson stuck with her.

Her mother had taught in an Italian Mission in Philadelphia so was well able to be the teacher for all the missionary children at Luebo.

When a boarding school for missionary children was started at Lubondai, (Central School for missionary children) Dot’s companion and sister left at age 9 ½ to attend. Dot was so homesick for her sister that she begged to go also; so, the next semester was allowed to do so. They only got home for vacations twice during each year. Their daddy took them on walks, on picnics, and taught them the Shorter Catechism. Never will Dot forget: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”

Sunday mornings they always went to African Church where her dad preached every other Sunday, alternating with the African pastor of First Church, Luebo. A dentist’s wife taught them Sunday School in the afternoons and had a profound influence on Dot’s life; Mrs. Wilds encouraged them to have what they termed “prayer circle” at their dorm at school, and Dot feels that this gave her freedom to talk to God about anything. An English worship service was held in the afternoon around five o’clock each Sunday.

In the hot tropics, ice was a fascinating thing; thus, she remembers the first piece of ice she ever saw out there; she was eight and it was floating in orange juice. Dr. Stixrud had an “Icy Ball” making ice, one tray at a time.

One day a week the Longenecker girls would play games with the “girls in the home” who had been rescued from child marriage or were in need of a dorm so they could be close to a school. She remembers the fun of planning Christmas parties for the Circle Leaders her mother taught in a weekly Bible Class.

Preparation for the Communion Service was different in Africa for there were no grapes; fresh pineapple juice was used instead, and Dot’s mother supervised its preparation on their back porch.

Dot’s family went to get little David Anderson following the death of his mother and sister and then the Shives next door cared for him.

Her dad loved his press work, but when he couldn’t sleep at night would walk and sing outdoors to help him solve problems. He helped her mother learn to ride a bike by moonlight so she would not be embarrassed and would be able to use a bike visiting in the village in her work with women and girls. Alice and Dot received bicycles as rewards for learning the catechism. There were sweet memories of hearing “O Holy Night” sung in French by Congolese male voices from the church tower one beautiful tropical moonlit night.

She had bitter memories of seeing Dr. Stixrud’s patients with elephantiasis and other terrible illnesses. They felt safe in the African villages except on market day when their daddy told them not to go because often persons got drunk on palm wine.

Of her Christian experience Dorothy says that she always knew that God loved her. She learned from the songs her mother taught them and the loving faith of her parents shared always in family prayers. Alice and Dot were each given a King James Bible in which their mother carefully marked the verse John 5:24 (Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment but has passed from death to life.) and then explained what it meant. In the tropical heat most foreigners found it necessary to rest awhile after lunch.

One day while Dot and Alice were reading in their Bibles as they lay on their beds during rest hour, they both decided they wanted to join the church. There were 50 Congolese who joined the church with Alice and Dot. Dr. Motte Martin, a fascinating pioneer missionary officiated at the service. The children loved him, nicknamed him “Pim” and would visit his apartment to make faces in his rounded mirror.

It was a joy to hear Dot’s “random recalls” about the fun of making Christmas presents ahead of time, worshiping with friends and the special Christmas programs led by the missionaries. Sleeping under mosquito nets was routine; fighting white ants and termites was also, and the legs of their dining table sat in little cans of water topped with kerosene to discourage the accent of tiny ants to devour their food first. There were no “flush toilets” in her youth and helpers had to carry their water used up from a spring. But Dot’s thoughts about her home are attached with a feeling of safety, cleanness and coolness. Dot said, “Mother always had fresh flowers the house and potted plants and ferns on the veranda. Our home was attractive and happy.” They played dominoes, anagrams, horseshoes. They sang, told jokes, and shared stories. They sewed and read aloud. There was tenderness and supportiveness among them.

Their first three furloughs, as Home Assignment was called then, fell when she was 1 ½, 5 ½, and 10 ½ and were spent on the farm in Missouri. Her next year in the United States was at age sixteen when they stayed at Mission Court in Richmond where she attended Thomas Jefferson High School. She describes this as being the most difficult year in her life for she arrived from Africa not even knowing how to use a phone or ride a bus, and she felt painfully shy. To quote Dot, “Blessings on Mission Court and the love of Ginter Park Church.” There were 7 missionary high schoolers from 5 countries at Mission Court at that time with Gay Currie of China the ringleader of most of the fun events. The next year Dot entered Queens College in Charlotte at age 17 where she found things easier. With parents in Africa she spent her summers in Montreat at Collegiate Home, a summer home for missionary young people established by Montreat ladies led by Miss Lidell. It was the envy of other Montreat young people who sensed a special closeness and kindred bond among these young people whose parents were serving Christ’s kingdom abroad. At Collegiate Home Dot first met Joe Hopper who was just one of her good friends. Dot and Joe were blessed by attending Synod of North Carolina Young People’s Conferences in the summers which were held on Davidson College campus. Her College years were punctuated with the feeling of confidence given her when she became President of the Queens Christian Association her final year and the morale boost of having her short story win the creative talent contest. She taught Bible School in Ash County one summer and was bitten by bed bugs. She earned her B. A. Degree in English and proceeded to the Presbyterian School for Christian Education in Richmond, then known as A.T.S, the Assembly’s Training School.

In 1941 she was eagerly awaiting the arrival of her parents when a cablegram brought word that they could not come due to submarine activity in the Caribbean and of course, the only transportation available was by ship which meant waiting for 2 ½ more years to see them. This was a big blow to her. Dot had planned to live at Mission Court with them, but Dr. and Mrs. Henry Mack on the A.T.S. faculty invited her to live in their Home. Upon graduation she went to Blackstone, Virginia, to work with the Reverend Thomas and Louise Fry. She was paid by the Defense Council to work with serviceman and their families seeking to bring them nearer to Christ and within the Christian fellowship of the Blackstone Church.

In March 1945 after a loving farewell from the church, she went to join her family at Mission Court. She applied for her African visa and began buying clothes appropriate for missionary service in Africa. The generous farewell gift of money from Blackstone Church was spent on luggage on which she had her single initials put. But her “good friend”, Joe Hopper, took her to hear Kagawa preach at the Mosque, and they began serious dating. They had been friends in Montreat, and both had attended some Queens/Davidson parties; also, he was at Union Theological Seminary one year while she completed A.T.S. across the street. He had visited her in Blackstone when he spoke on Korea at the church there. More and more she had the feeling that “it was not so bright an idea to go to Congo”, single that is; but when Joe finally proposed she hated to break a commitment made and said she would be had in three years.

She talked over her plight with her parents, feeling more and more like hypocrite when people would introduce her as “one of our own returning to Africa.” Her father’s loving counsel was that the Lord instituted marriage before missions; so, Joe wrote the Board of World Missions to break her appointment by them and the State Department sent back her $10 for her visa. She Joe visited Blackstone where Dr. Fry announced their engagement from that pulpit. Most people do not realize that missionary children have no home church in which to get married, but the Blackstone Church became her home for this important event in her life. The Women of the Church decorated the sanctuary and put on their reception. Despite gas rationing all of their immediate family members were present for the rehearsal and wedding, except for Mardia Brown who had two young children. Joe had $50 for their 3-day honeymoon in the Natural Bridge and Mountain Lake area of Virginia. Young people of the First Church of Petersburg gave them a noisy send off with all the trimmings for newlyweds for Joe had worked at two chapels out from First Church as well.

Joe took his bride to Callaway, Virginia, where he was pastor for five churches and outposts at the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains about 40 miles from Roanoke. They were provided with a huge manse and even bigger garden which got terribly neglected their first summer as they put on five vacation Bible Schools. The parishioners decided that if “Preacher Hopper” attended to the spiritual lives of their children, they could provide their minister with vegetables. Thus, ended the Hopper’s’ farming career until they reached Korea. The Hoppers rejoice that Piedmont Presbyterian is now one of their fourteen supporting churches; without the prayers and sacrificial systematic giving of theses churches, Joe and Dot could not have served in Korea obeying Christ’s Great Commission. Dot described the people near Callaway as “Salt of the earth folks!” Their first child, Alice was born in Roanoke while there. The summer of 1946 Dot and Joe were commissioned at the Montreat Missions conference as missionaries to Korea. They wished to come night to Korea in 1947 but due to the unrest of that time, families with children were not permitted to go; so, in the fall they were sent to Yale Institute of Far Eastern Languages. They made many long-lasting friendship during their struggles there. Returning to Mission Court in the summer of 1948, they awaited permission to go to Korea to on troops ship: the only transportations available those days. When Dot was about six months pregnant, they sailed to Inchon. Joe’s parents were on the dock to greet them as was a black Army band playing for the military, it made this African–born young lady feel right at home. This was a time of great confusion in Korea when Communist elements revolted, taking over a large area in the 1948 insurrection called the Soonchun uprising. Joe’s parents came to be with Dot prior to the birth of Barron, their second baby, delivered by Dr. Paul Crane two days before Christmas. Curly-haired Alice was the first child to return to the Mission after World War II.

Joe’s first request from Koreans was that he be the choir director at a church across town which he was glad to do. Lepers living in pitiful conditions in a riverbed sought his friendship and help. His loving care of them and their church during their years of ministry, earned Joe the privilege of being Pastor Emeritus of their church in Samnye where these folks have a thriving chicken business. These leprosy patients do well, are integrated back into society and welcome Joe each Christmas morn to preach at their church. Upon arrival in Chonju, Joe had of necessity rounded up some carpenters and workmen to repair the shell of the house they were to live in for 17 years. When Dot first saw it, there were no doors, no windows, no electric fixtures, no plumbing an old huge tub too heavy to move. Margaret Pritchard, the nurse, graciously cared for them till their abode was usable. Dot fixed this house into a home and was mostly busy with children and family although she renewed Korean language study the day Barron was a month old. To get milk for the children, Joe traveled to Mokpo where he sought the man who had worked for his parents when he was a lad. There he bought a Holstein from him, rented a box car which they filled with soybean feed for the cow and proceeded to Chonju all for a cost of $115. Pea-sae-won, who knew how to care for a cow, and his patient wife, who did well at caring for “mish-kids”, became Dot and Joe’s faithful helpers for years and years. Deacon Pae gardened using American seeds, milked and pasteurized the milk, and acted guard the many nights Joe was off itinerating. Nurse Pritchard knew when women lacked milk to nurse their babies and instructed them to go to the Hopper’s kitchen door daily to get the milk they needed. Other missionary families bought milk for their children, also.

Dorothy attended West Gate Church where she took off her shoes at the door and entered to sit with the women while the men sat on the other side. Many mothers in the congregation wore Chima blouse and Chogori skirts back then and sat nursing their babies. To this day Dorothy has a deep concern for Korean women and for their children, especially the little ones. She has watched and rejoiced as many friends have grown in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, maturing into excellent leaders in local churches or Presbyterial work. In the tradition of her mother in Africa, at time she has given parties for 40 or 50 Korean women of the Church ladies in her home. What laughter and fun they have shared in the Hopper living/dining room!

The sudden invasion and outbreak of war in 1950 threw her family life into a different chapter. Dot became one of those who had to “evacuate” with only husband, children, and a suitcase a piece of things. The story of Joseph taking Mary and the infant Jesus to Egypt meant a lot to at this time, for although it seemed terrible just to drive away leaving Koreans to do the best they could, Dot remembered that in God’s time Jesus did return to carry out His Father’s will for Him. Dot said that on June 25, 1950, after the English worship service, Dr. Paul Crane told the mission, gathered at Chonju for their annual meeting, that an American advisor to Korean troops told him of the North Korean invasion that Sunday morning. Rev. R. K. Robinson had just preached on the Acts text, “They that have turned the world upside down have come here also.” Following the service held in the new Nursing School building, the men remained to assign responsibilities. Joe, her husband, was in charge of preparation of vehicles should they need to evacuate. Communications were meager then and few realized a war had started. Apprehensive of local uprisings, the missionary men, two by two, took turns patrolling the compound carrying hunting gun. Apparently, all was calm until Monday about midnight when a phone call placed to the American Embassy Dr. Linton went through and they were advised to proceed by convoy to Pusan.

Dot shared personally of the experiences that followed. “Sophie Crane and I (the most “expectant”) rated seats with doctor and nurse in the foremost vehicle. We spent the night in Soonchun. Some 70 passengers rode a freighter meant for 12 passengers to Japan and were greeted by Red Cross workers offering toothbrushes and other supplies. A wild bus ride during a blackout us to a military camp where for 5 days we were marooned, our men in one barracks, the women and children in another. And sadly, we knew that American boys were leaving the camp to fight in Korea. (Loving Korea we were grateful for the resolutions of President Truman and the United Nations.) Released to our Japan missionaries, we were hospitably received, but 22 persons in one house in hot weather is difficult. l chased our children by day; wept by night and thanked God when the mission requested that the Hoppers be permitted to fly to Seattle. It was my first flight and expensive for the Board of Missions, but we thanked God to get going. Joe did not wish to leave but a wise 80-years-old-plus physician who had evacuated from China eight times and lost all of his possessions six times, realized my needs and persuaded Joe to do so”.

Two months after the evacuation from Korea and Japan, during the time McArthur was landing troops at Inchon, David Hershey Hopper was born in Richmond. Mission court again sheltered us while we shared an apartment with my parents who were back from Africa and delighted to be with their grandchildren. Joe utilized this time to get his Th.M. with a fellowship given by Union Seminary at graduation and this enabled the Hoppers to move into a graduate student apartment. It was just after three cases of chickenpox and three of scarlet fever that Joe and Dot received THE letter from Mrs. W. A. Linton which made them pray earnestly before coming to a very difficult decision. She wrote that a young missionary (Joe) was needed to working Chonju so that Dr. Linton who required expert medical attention could receive it in the states. It seems Dr. Linton would not leave Chonju unless replaced and Mrs. Linton wrote that Joe seemed the logical one to go.

To put it in Dot’s own words,

In principal we disapprove of “split families” but decided that if the American G.I.’s were fighting in Korea and separated from their families for freedom’s sake Joe should go as the Lord’s work was calling him there.” Thus, the day after Joe received his degree, they headed for Quitman, Georgia, where Dorothy’s daddy had accepted the pastorate of first church. Her daddy had developed diabetes which would always require insulin and thus they were discouraged from returning to Africa. An apartment for Dot and the children was prepared with borrowed or furniture purchased “dirt cheap” and Joe prepared to depart. But they waited thought that long, hot summer for United Nations clearance to return to Korea and by September decided perhaps the Lord did not want him to go. However, the week of their David’s first birthday, the united Nations Permissions came and regretfully the kids and Dots kissed him “goodbye”.

Dot says that the love of friends in the Quitman Church and the presence and help of her parents upheld her somewhat, but most of all the everlasting arms of the Lord gave her stamina to get along without Joe. In Dot’s words,

I fell into bed evenings when the children did rather than blithely sewing on the new machine Joe had given me. One summer Joe’s mother invited the children and me to be near her in Montreat. A Bible Hour taught by Dr. John Anderson, then of First Church, Dallas, on Abraham’s willingness to offer his precious Isaac to the Lord lingers to bless me, for I was feeling sorry for myself and needed its encouragement: “First the test; then then the blessing.”’" Our separation proved so to Joe’s and my marriage. Joe, back at work in Chonju, was not near the fighting except for guerrilla activity. One Sunday driving to preach in a village, his vehicle rounded a bend of the road to find the church and homes in smoking ruins with shooting still in the hills nearby. Much refugee work was necessary. He wrote me that some people had only grass to eat. Later when I was able to go back to Chonju, an again Methodist minister brought me an engraved round brass tray and told me in English, “Your husband was like an angel to us!”"

The 19 months did pass and by God’s grace, Joe came back to us safely. The first day after his return just after we put 4 1/2-year Barron and 2 ½ years David down for naps, we happened to hear Barron instructing David: “Mama is the boss of we, but Daddy is the boss of she!” Joe took us to Montreat where we learned that American parents with children were still not permitted into Korea; so we readied ourselves and joined missionaries in Japan where a Korean language school had been set up, and the men could go work in Korea. We lived in the down start of a Japanese house which shook with the earthquakes. I taught Alice first grade and studied Korean some with a tutor who came to our home. The children loved the black pot bathtub which reminded me of a cannibal pot but they called it the “oh, phooey!” rather than “ofura”. The American military was most gracious in allowing us to ride their bus sent to gather dependents for Sunday worship in English held near the Diet Building. A Methodist Chaplain Anderson fed us richly from the word of God.

Daddies were off to Korea. Then, praise the Lord! – around Easter of 1954 families were told they could re-enter Korea. Husband came to get us and following hasty packing we returned Home to Chonju. We settled into years of “living happily ever after” as a family. Perhaps fifty Korean playmates of the boys, pet crows, pet magpies, rabbits, chickens, dogs, trips to the hospital to get stitches enlivened life. Joe’s care of the churches took his time, assisted by Mr. Lee, Young-Choon, then young. (Now fragile elder Lee, a widower, lives in Bangladesh with his missionary-internist son, lovely daughter-in-law and two grandchildren.) Many was the night deacon Lee and Joe shared a warm floor in a Korean Christian’s home in the boondocks of North Chulla Province. Many were the baptisms to be administered, communions to be served, and problems to be tackled in the tiny, weak parts of the Body of Christ which these two men with the Holy Spirit assisting, sought to solve. They planted Seeds of the Word of God and helped others plant churches in this area. What a deep satisfaction it has been to us to be here long enough to watch the Korean church grow and bear fruit for the kingdom. What a thrill it was to attend her centennial celebrations!

But there came the years of major splits in the church. Dot said that she was not actually involved but what wife is not terribly emotionally torn when her husband is right in the thick of such and not by choice. Dot is convinced that these fights are stirred up “by the devil, the father of lies, who goes about the earth seeking whom he can devour spiritually. It was the weak Christians and the new Christians who, failing to see the Spirit of Christ at work or find any salvation for their personal sins in some of the behavior by the church leaders fell away from the church. I think they felt, if all folks do in the Christian churches is fight, I want none of it; I’ll go elsewhere.’ Once Joe will ill with a bad carbuncle which confined him to bed. Dot had to escort Korean elders and deacons and ministers, either individually or in groups, up to his bedroom so that they could pour out their woes of how the church splitting were involving them and their congregations. In Presbyterial meetings she reported that at the time for reports there were tears and tales of heartache. As Dorothy thought of these disagreements among brethren, she remembered the words from James, ‘My Brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?’ She said that the words of Paul in Philippians 4:4 beseeching two ladies to be of the same mind in the Lord is still a very pertinent plea to Christians! Quoting Dot,

Careful knowledge of what one does believe from the Word of God and why and standing up for one’s faith and convictions are needful. But petty hatreds, selfish words and wicked actions do not honor the Lord of Glory who died for our sins and rose gloriously that He might now live through His children.

The year that missionary families returned to Korea, each couple in the Mission had a new baby born. To the Hoppers it was Margaret Lois who was born on Sunday afternoon, two days after her 8-year-old sister’s birthday; delivered by Dr. Paul Crane. Dorothy states,

When I married my husband, included with him were the Chidi Mountains which he had loved with a passion since a boy. Vacations on Mission fields are important that one may rest as our Lord took His disciples apart to do. A simple clapboard cabin up Chidi with a loft for our children to sleep in has been as a magnet drawing our family closer to each other and to the Lord Who created the beauty of the streams, the mountain ranges, the trees clapping their hands and each of us. I think the Lord has used Chidi and our children’s memories of fun and worship there as a steadying influence when, far from us, at times their Christian actions required them to swim upstream counter to American culture. Joe’s father stated, “Chidi is not for the fainthearted”; nor is it, with no car road up. Its hymn, “I sing the mighty power of God who made the mountains rise” (by Isaac Watts) is as appropriate when we sing it nowadays as it was in the similar but larger camp of Joe’s boyhood.

Our Alice and David graduated from King College, Bristol, Tennessee; Barron from the University of North Carolina in Asheville, Margaret from Emory University School of Nursing receiving R. N. and B.S. degrees. The first three graduations we were unable to attend, as my parents (in Africa) had not been at my college graduation. But we rejoiced to watch Margaret receive her nursing pin one evening and college diploma the next morning. And the Lord has blessed us by enabling us to be at family weddings.

Each of our children have served the Lord in Korea for brief periods of time except for Margaret who worked in Haiti and later in Bangladesh. Within a 7 year span the Lord gave us 7 grandchildren, one a year with another now on the way. Joseph, Justin, Jacqueline, Betsy, Lydia, Rachel, Martha are each unique, priceless creations in the eyes of their grandparents. Surely grandchildren are the most marvelously heart-warming gifts that the Giver of every good and perfect gift can send to a family. Each of ours has taught and blessed us. Perhaps we’ve learned the most from Lydia, David and Liza’s precious Downs Syndrome daughter. We now realize that each person is handicapped in one way or another. Since her muscle-tone development delayed Lydia’s ability to talk, I had persons on 3 continents praying for her. Later a Korean fisherman’s wife, waiting tables at a Presbytery meeting on Cheju Island, stopped me after lunch to ask if Lydia could yet walk; and a Korean deacon with Parkinson’s sitting on his pallet in his village home haltingly asked how Lydia was getting on, for he was praying for her.

Dr. Ham Hamilton of China missionary fame calls his sons-and-daughters-in-law the “spice” of their family. Such are ours: Jack Dokter, an Electrical engineer in Stone Mountain, Georgia; Martha Mathes (Hopper), whose husband, Barron, will this year complete his ministerial course at Columbia Seminary; and Liza Watters (Hopper), doctor’s wife in Princeton, West Virginia.

Time and space do not permit me to seek to explain the depth of closeness we feel with other missionary colleagues and with Korean Christians of all ages. But having watched the Lord’s power and providence at work on three continents, I can echo the song of that prolific blind hymn-writer, Fanny Crosby,

All the way my Savior leads me, What have I to ask beside. Can I doubt His tender mercy, Who through life has been my Guide?

Your interviewer could tell about Dot: the willing helper, the generous and loving neighbor, the faithful encouraging friend, the prayer warrior and silent support of strength for her husband and family. She along with the other missionary mothers in Chonju had to teach the missionary children until all were through the sixth grade. Looking at the number of these children with graduate degrees from prominent schools, I would say those mothers did a dedicated job. During these years she used her creative skills for her family, but after she sent the younger daughter to boarding school, for about seven years Joe and Dot itinerated in a jeep pulling a little 13-foot travel trailer given by the men of Covenant Church in Charlotte which was their home on wheels. Later, she again took up her creative writing and has contributed to the English-speaking Korean community through her articles for the Korea Times newspaper. Dot is a disciplined person with her time and means. She would bring her clock and sit down and read to an ancient mother who could no longer see well enough to read, or go sit by a bedside and read for a patient’s diversion and healing, or join a fellow missionary for a time of “talking with the Lord”. I think of her as embodying the finest attributes of a Christian woman. With a Korean lady she has visited the women in prison leading Christian worship weekly. She has hugged and played with many a little orphan. I picture her in the country out under a tree next to a little Church surrounded by children and often grandparents telling the wonderful Bible stories using large pictures as illustrations. When necessary she would pump the little organ to accompany hymns. Always she has been Joe’s partner in ministry wherever the Lord has called them. Most recently this has been to the island of Cheju off the southern coast of Korea, a beautiful tourist site, but a land filled with superstition, fear of evil spirits and struggling rural churches began by war refugees. Though their retirement from the field will begin in July of 1986, the influence of their ministry will continue on three continents and wherever a community is blessed by their presence.

I think of Dorothy as a jewel faceted by the Lord to reflect His steadfast love. It can truly be said of her, “She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat of the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed, her husband (and friends) also, and (they) praise her; many women do noble things, but you surpass them all” (Proverbs 30:25-29). I know for I am privileged to be her friend and neighbor.

ADDENDUM by David Hopper

The above was written by Mary Seel, career missionary to Chonju (Jeonju) with the Presbyterian Church, wife of Dr. David Seel.

After 1986 the Hoppers retired to Montreat, NC. Joe B. Hopper authored MISSION TO KOREA, which was published after his death, which tells more of the life of Dot Hopper. They lived in Montreat in their little home on Mississippi Road until Joe died in 1992. After a time living alone Dot moved to Highland Farms Retirement in Black Mountain, where she lived for a decade. Finally, she moved to Princeton WV where she lived at the Haven’s Nursing Home until her son’s family moved to NC. At that time, she moved to Brookshire Nursing Facility where she resided until she went to be with the Lord in 2015 at the age of 95. The nurses in Brookshire enjoyed her singing to them in Chaluba (a Congo tribal language) and Korean, and at times she would speak to people in a foreign language. Until her death she maintained the same sweet spirit. She is buried next to Joe Hopper at Mountain View Memorial Park.

Dorothy “Dot” Longenecker Hopper, age 95, went to be with her Savior on Friday, December 4, 2015 in Hillsborough, NC, surrounded by her children and loved ones.

She was born March 26, 1920 in the Belgian Congo to Jay Hershey and Minnie Hauhart Longenecker. Dot grew up as a missionary kid in the Belgian Congo. She earned her B.A. in English at Queens College and received her Master’s in Christian Education at the Presbyterian School for Christian Education in Richmond (formerly The Assembly’s Training School) with a thesis entitled “The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Second Generation Foreign Missionaries of the Presbyterian Church U.S.” She married Joseph Barron Hopper, whom she met at Collegiate Home in Montreat, NC. She and Joe served as Presbyterian missionaries under the Board of World Missions, Presbyterian Church in the U.S., in South Korea for 38 years before retiring to Montreat.

Dot was a loving wife, mother, and grandmother; a prayer warrior; a painter; and a dear friend to many people around the world. She was known as an excellent storyteller of her childhood adventures in the Congo and her adult years in Korea.

She is survived by her four children, Alice Hopper Dokter of Stone Mountain, GA, J. Barron Hopper of Kingsport, TN, David Hershey Hopper of Greensboro, NC, and Margaret Hopper Faircloth of Hillsborough, NC; her nine grandchildren, Joseph Hopper, Justin Dokter, Betsy Herman, Jacqueline James, Lydia Hopper, Rachel Caughran, Martha Theilacker, Tim Hopper, and Laura Faircloth; and her 11 great-grandchildren.

Dot was predeceased by her husband, Joe; her parents; her stepmother, Ruth Engler Longenecker; her sisters, Alice Longenecker Vail and Roberta Longenecker; and her brother, Hershey James “Jim” Longenecker.

Her family is grateful to the staff at her home, Brookshire Senior Living in Hillsborough, for their excellent care of her in recent years.

A memorial service will be held at Gaither/Graham Chapel in Montreat, NC on Saturday, December 12, at 4 pm, with a reception following. A private burial will precede the service.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to the Dot Hopper Africa Memorial Fund, c/o Preston Hills Presbyterian Church, 4701 Orebank Rd., Kingsport, TN, USA.

When all was ready we held the worship service. Everyone was seated on the floor, men on one side and women on the other. Mothers often brought several small children with them who ran in and out during the service. If their babies required feeding or any other attention this was cared for without embarrassment wherever they happened to be sitting. Many babies were tied to the backs of their mothers who sometimes stood at the back of the little church jiggling them up and down to keep them quiet or put them to sleep. Often the crowd had been gathering for hours beforehand and occupied themselves with singing hymns while waiting for the service to begin.

I carefully prepared the Communion set with the cloth covers, while the assembled multitude watched with great interest because it seemed to represent something mysterious to people accustomed to all kinds of elaborate shamanistic rituals. The evangelist in charge of the church (or an elder or deacon when there was no evangelist) usually presided, in much the same way services are held here in the United States. Hymns were sung with great enthusiasm, and often off-key as might be expected. There was seldom an instrument, although sometimes the church had acquired a small pump organ played in such a way that it was more hindrance than help.

Prayers were long, and many times (I once counted five) in the same service I heard the same petition, “Oh Lord, thank you for sending your honorable right-hand servant, the missionary, to be with us today!” It always seemed like the Lord did not need to be reminded of this quite so often, and the idea of an honorable servant struck me as somewhat self-contradictory. Then I preached a simple Gospel message, and tried to relate my words to a congregation to whom most of this was new. Perhaps the congregation paid closer attention because my foreign accent (and frequent linguistic boo- boos) was amusing. I suppose I used Luke 19:1-10 more than any other single passage because the story of Jesus and Zaccheus is so understandable and has such an appropriate conclusion with the words, “The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

After the sermon came the reception of new members.The names of those received as catechumens were read, and they replied and stood up. I propounded some simple vows to which they responded. Afterwards I announced that they were now catechumens. Then those to be baptized were called forward. Although told to line up in the order called, they always seemed to get mixed up and this caused considerable confusion. Holding the list of names in one hand I baptized with the other, while my assistant held the water and prompted me when I mispronounced the names (which was easy to do). On the first visit to a church it was not unusual for the administering of this sacrament to elicit loud comments from those in the congregation … perhaps a know-it-all member of the church explaining to someone who had never witnessed it what this was all about. If it was a row of little girls, and one of them started to giggle, soon all of them would join in and a stern reprimand would be required. Occasionally an old grandmother would weep with emotion. Once in a small church where all were lepers, an elderly woman whom I baptized did a strange little dance with her feet moving in a circle while the rest of her body stayed still. Another time on a bitterly cold January day in an unheated church, I once watched the water for the baptism in the little bowl freeze over while I was preaching (it wasn’t a very long sermon either) and had to tap and break it before the ceremony!

There were very few infant baptisms, simply because in a new church there were seldom any Christian families. But when infants were presented for baptism, it afforded an opportunity to briefly extol the values of a Christian home. As happens anywhere, we never knew how a baby would behave. It was not my practice to try to hold the child to whom a large foreigner might appear frightening. Besides, in those days diapers were not normally used!

At this point in the service it was customary to announce the appointment of unordained deacons, “kwun-chals,” and Sunday School teachers. The list was usually prepared by the local evangelist ahead of time, and I would approve it, although I seldom knew the people well enough to know who was qualified and simply had to take his word for it. The congregation was always quiet and waited with bated breath for this announcement because to become an officer and therefore entitled to be addressed as “Deacon” so-and-so was a much coveted honor.

Finally all baptized members were asked to sit at the front of the church. Often there were very few (perhaps only a dozen) eligible to partake of Communion and the rest were simply onlookers. Many times, the windows of the little meeting place were wide open but filled with the faces of curious villagers who had never seen such a service before. Here I realized our Savior’s wisdom in giving us the sacraments where, by visible symbols, such deep truths could be taught and remembered by sight and hearing. With both sacraments, my lengthy explanation of their meaning was intended not just for those participating but for all the curious witnesses both inside and outside the church. The climax came as, while thinking of these spectators, I repeated the words of the Savior, “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lords death until he comes.”

If this was a morning service, we ate dinner wherever it had been prepared for us (usually in the home ofthe most prosperous church member) and moved on afterwards to the next church. While waiting to eat, as many as could crowded into the little room where we talked over local church affairs, answered questions about the Bible and the Christian faith, and discussed everything else from local farming conditions to world affairs. All this was time consuming but provided cultural and physical (literally) close contact with my Korean friends. In the early days when the rice had to be cooked over a wood-fire, several hours wait was often involved. The fires had to be started, the water boiled, and the rice cooked … and that takes time. Often we would hear the “old red hen” give her final squawk before being put into the pot and boiled for the missionary’s dinner. She would then be brought to the table in lordly splendor, with head, feet, and everything else all in one piece. Rarely was a knife provided, so the hostess would come and pull the delectable fowl apart with her fingers.

Evening services usually ran very late, often well past my usual bedtime. I longed to open up my cot, spread out my sleeping bag, and go to sleep. But no! That was not to be. Again, as many church folks as possible crowded into the little room, almost sitting on one another, for more of the inevitable refreshments and continued socializing for what seemed endless hours while I tried to keep my eyes open. Finally they would leave, and we could settle down for the night… usually with my assistant and perhaps several other men in the same room. The fire which heated the floor had been stoked for the night, making the room uncomfortably warm. There were no windows and usually only one door which was made of a wooden lattice work covered over with white Korean paper. This door was always shut tight. As a result in a few minutes with heat in the floor, and several men snoring about me, and no ventilation at all, the situation became unbearably hot and stuffy so far as I was concerned.

(Joe B. Hopper, Mission to Korea, pp. 229-232)

That mother through the years had endured and won in the Christian race, who had a supreme desire and joy in having her children to bear the message glorious, wrote me these words about her daughter’s decision: ‘It is great to have another one of my dear ones called into the Master’s service.’

Mothers with a triumphant faith like this are constantly needed that Christian witnessing may be continued ‘both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’

Margaret Hopper served in Mokpo, Korea from 1922-1940 and 1948-57.

From The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, Volume 3, Page 116