Volume 2 Issue 4
Page 2

October 1997

Editorial...

"Save Me From My Friends"

Several months ago, an announcement appeared in the CONCERNED PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE, in which notice was served that an upcoming issue of the magazine would be devoted to the issue of creation. Shortly after that announcement appeared, we received a note from an individual who was generally supportive of the articles we had been publishing, but who wanted us to avoid beating the drum for a literal six twenty-four hour day view of the account in Genesis one. The correspondent obviously felt that no good purpose could be served by insisting on such a literal interpretation, asserting that there were many godly men who do not hold that view.

Those of you who have been receiving our publications on a regular basis know that we did not take-indeed, we, in all conscience, could not take the advice that was offered. If anything, we were even more determined to meet this issue head-on, no matter who might be found lurking in the way to defend a non-literal understanding of the six days of Genesis one. We were well aware, of course, that various non-literal views have been gaining in acceptance in virtually every evangelical church; and in light of certain comments which were made on the floor of the Dallas meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, we were well aware that our own denomination was not free of this insidious influence. As we have talked with people in our presbyteries and received items of correspondence from around the Assembly, it has become more and more evident to us that our church is in serious trouble on this issue.

What is especially disconcerting is the fact that some of those who are now taking the lead in the attempt to have non-literal views of the creation days of Genesis one accepted in our denomination are men whom we have found standing with us on other issues of concern and whom we had hoped would be among the more capable defenders of the historic faith also in connection with this matter of fundamental importance. Alas, it is not to be so. At the most recent meeting of the General Assembly, our heart sank to hear men of whom we thought better rising to defend an inclusivist view with regard to the various "theories" of the creation account.

Doubly disconcerting is the fact that they have set themselves to dredge up support for their position by citations from various nineteenth century theologians who are considered, for the most part anyway, to have been paragons of Reformed Orthodoxy. Thus, we are witness to the spectacle of such as the Hodges and Warfield of old Princeton, Beattie of Louisville, and Shedd of Union, being crowded to the defense of a non-literal understanding of the days of Genesis one, based on their interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith on this subject. What we do not hear mentioned, of course-and what we are not likely to hear mentioned by those who are contending for this latitudinarian approach-is the fact that the institutions and churches which these men served are, today, without exception, apostate, not merely as to this one narrowly-defined issue, but with regard to the Faith as a whole. And despite the fact that these men were sound on perhaps as much as ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of what they taught, this single departure was the seed from which has sprung up the bitter weed of apostasy. A fascinating, if somewhat tedious, account of this may be found in Gary North's recently published book, CROSSED FINGERS: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. North documents how the cause of Reformed Confessionalism was undercut in the Old School Northern Presbyterian Church by the defection of some of the most prominent of the Old School men on, among other things, the Westminster Confession's teaching on the six day creation. When the heretic Charles Augustus Briggs openly rejected the teaching of the Confession, he was able to state, without much fear of contradiction, that as far as the doctrine of creation was concerned, "there are many different views on this subject now existing in the Presbyterian Church" (CROSSED FINGERS, p. 222). He and others were able to capitalize on this chink in the armour of Old School orthodoxy to introduce all sorts of heretical teachings. And while Briggs was personally called to account for his views, he paved the way for other and progressively more outrageous departures from the truth.

The question which needs to be raised is, do those who want the church to be open to these alternative, non-literal views of the days of Genesis one really believe that the Presbyterian Church in America can avoid the shipwreck made by her ecclesiastical progenitors? We sincerely doubt it. Indeed, we will go further and confidently predict that if these non-literal views of the teaching of Scripture in Genesis one and the teaching of our Confession in chapter six are permitted a place of acceptance in our denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America will not see another generation pass before it is under the control of full-blown modernism. And the responsibility-and the shame-will be at the feet of those who think it more important to be respectable in the eyes of the world than to hold to the unvarnished truth of God's Word.

With good cause might the Bible be heard to cry, "Save me from my friends."