ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Examining the idea that teachers are above the rules
ordinary mortals go by—

by G. Aiken Taylor, Ph.D.

The issue of “academic freedom” is rapidly becoming a major one. In some denominations there is no greater. A poll of 30 Baptist editors—for instance—placed the dismissal of Dr. Ralph Elliott from Midwestern Baptist Seminary, and the appointment of a special committee by the 1962 Southern Baptist Convention to re-study its statement of faith, as the two top news stories of 1962. Both stories had to do with the issue of academic freedom.

Dr. Elliott was dismissed from the seminary on account of his book, The Message of Genesis, which allegedly treats Biblical history lightly. His dismissal was hailed as a victory by conservative forces in the never-ending struggle between liberal and conservative elements which is going on in all Churches today.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the incident is not yet clear. Although the action against Dr. Elliott was supported by most state conventions we heard from, the liberals—mostly the academic community in this case—have shown no intention of letting it go at that. While the conservatives rest on their oars, confident in victory, the campaign to discredit them gradually increases in vigor and will probably win out in the end.

Conservatives are notoriously like the hare in the fable of the tortoise and the hare. They get excited but tend to relax again just as easily. The liberals, on the other hand, patiently keep up their subtle pressures until the resistance is overcome.

Latest development in the Elliott case is a paper signed by 37 religious professors in eight Southern Baptist colleges, condemning the seminary for “sacrificing” its “integrity in Biblical scholarship” and “denying” the “seminary’s freedom to interpret Scripture under the authority of Christ in Scripture” (which usually means, “the right to teach students to mistrust people who take the Bible to mean what it says.”)

We can predict the outcome of this controversy with a fair degree of assurance. Dr. Elliott will be reinstated—or elevated to something better—the book will be brought out by another publisher and will become an approved text in schools and colleges. The whole Baptist denomination, which supported his dismissal, but which ran out of steam as soon as he had left the seminary, will stand by helplessly wringing its collective hands.

A   SECULAR   EXAMPLE

Down in Florida another example of controversy over academic freedom has been unfolding, this time in the world of secular education. The whole state has been in an uproar over something which developed at the University of South Florida, in Tampa, where the atmosphere in some classes was alleged to have attained almost incredible depths of depravity and irreverence. One professor was dismissed. A legislative investigation of the whole state university system was held, resulting in some new statements of policy by the Board of Control. But after the dust had settled the professor was reinstated and business has continued pretty much as usual in Florida.

In the world of religion the issue of academic freedom appears as “freedom of conscience” or “freedom to interpret the Scriptures according to conscience.” The intensity of concern which some feel is reflected in that “message” recently issued by the Division of Higher Education of the Presbyterian Church US wherein it was urged that “the whole enterprise of higher education should be free from social, political, ecclesiastical and economic reprisals against academic freedom.”

The issue also rears its head in such controversies as that one which attended the Fifth World Order Study Conference of the National Council of Churches with its famous recommendation that Red China be admitted to the United Nations (“The Conference certainly had a right to speak its mind to the Churches”); and the Winston-Salem General Assembly hassle over the Layman’s Bible Commentary (“Writers have a right to follow the leading of responsible scholarship”).

RESTRICTIONS   APPLY   TO   ALL

What about it? The governor of Florida, at the height of the controversy in that state, offered some informal remarks at a news conference which constitute a sort of classic answer to the labored quibbles of those liberals who really want license to subvert when they demand “freedom.” Said the governor:

“Academic freedom is, of course, a part of freedom. It doesn’t rise to any higher levels or sink to any lower depths than other elements of freedom. It is like freedom of the press—it is bound by certain limitations. It’s necessary—and with it go certain privileges and certain responsibilities . . . (there is) a distinction between academic freedom and academic license . . . Obviously, unless each man is to be a law unto himself, there must be someone to say what the law is relative to that man; or somebody, or some means . . .

“I am concerned, on the one hand, that we do nothing to limit a proper exercise of academic freedom. On the other hand, I am equally concerned that we do nothing to restrict the power of the people to express themselves in all areas of government. And there is no area excluded.

“The people have a right to restrict the governor — they do so. They have a right to restrict the courts—I think—historically they have done so. And I think they have a right to restrict the Legislature, and they do so. And therefore I don’t want to see us get ourselves in a situation where we set one group aside and say: ‘But you are a law unto yourselves.’ I don’t think it is enough to say: ‘Well, we are gentlemen and we are patriots and we are intellectuals, and therefore we do not need to be restrained at all,’ because in an ordered society there must be restraints on everyone, or else there is no law and if there is no law there is nothing to protect academic freedom or any other freedom. . .” The governor was speaking about the “right” of professors in a state university to teach atheism and to bring open obscenity and pornography into their classes. His remarks apply equally well to the “right” of professors of Bible and religion to teach anything they please about Bible and religion.

NO LIMITS TO ‘FREEDOM’?

We know one professor of Bible in a Presbyterian college who interprets the “freedom to interpret Scripture according to conscience” to mean that he is free to teach his students that the Bible is an utterly relative book, that even the Ten Commandments have no lasting validity. This professor caused a great uproar in a US synod last year. Then the uproar died down and he is still doing business at the same stand. But does “academic freedom” give him the right to teach in a Presbyterian institution that the Bible is not to be considered a final authority even in matters of religion?

In the case of Dr. Elliott our Baptist brethren have been concerned that professors in their institutions shall teach accepted Baptist interpretations of the Bible. Has the denomination the right to expect this?

May a man accept ordination in a Baptist church and then proceed to teach and practice Infant Baptism? Has he the right to accept a teaching position in a Baptist seminary and teach his students that without the episcopate and apostolic succession there can be no true Church?

What if a theologian in a Methodist institution tried to inculcate his students in Double Predestination? Or a Presbyterian professor began advocating prayers on behalf of the dead? Would such departures from denominational doctrine be right?

What of the Presbyterian who vows that he accepts the Confession of Faith, then manages to make it appear ridiculous every time he mentions it?

What of the teacher who denies the Virgin Birth or the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ? Has he the right in the name of academic freedom?

In other words, at what point does academic “freedom” cross the line of propriety and become irresponsible license? And who is to determine that point? The teacher himself?

It is quite possible that Presbyterian Church courts—presbytery, synod and General Assembly—have been hypnotized by the ecclesiastical eggheads waving that club of academic freedom. If so, one or two considerations may help bring things back into proper focus:

FREE TO SEARCH, BUT NOT TO CORRUPT

For one thing, a distinction should be made between the freedom to inquire and the freedom to teach. The human spirit may certainly roam freely in its search for truth but that freedom to roam is not to be equated with any alleged right on the part of one spirit to drag another spirit along with it on an excursion into error.

A science professor invites his students to enter the laboratory and by means of experiments find out for themselves what is true in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology. And when the student curiously begins to mix certain chemicals to see what will happen he is exercising a very necessary “freedom” to inquire and discover.

But the teacher who stands by encouraging this “freedom” on the part of his students has no right to tell them that if they mix chemicals “A” and “B” something predictable will happen—if he doesn’t really know what will happen by mixing chemicals “A” and “B”.

In like manner, the teacher of Bible or of religion may certainly encourage his students to pursue after truth with an unfettered spirit. But it can be said on the highest possible authority that no teacher of Bible or of religion has the slightest freedom to teach uncertain conclusions for truth.

Obviously, then, the question prior to that of academic freedom is the oldest of them all : What is truth?

If it be accepted as an axiom that one may not deliberately inculcate error or false conclusions—not even in the name of academic freedom—then it becomes important to determine how one arrives at the truth.

The freedom every spirit has to search for himself means that every spirit may determine what is true for himself, if he wishes. But every other man also has the right to determine what is true for himself. Does this mean that there will be as many different varieties of truth as there are men? Possibly—if every man is the sole judge of what is true.

But an infinite variety of opinions as to the truth of things would lead only to social chaos. Consequently men persuade each other to accept specific definitions of truth and they band themselves together on the basis of their agreement upon the truth.

This principle applies to religion.

Moreover the Christian religion begins by affirming that this truth has not simply been determined by some men and agreed upon by others, it is from God. This is where revelation comes in. And the Scriptures. And confessions of faith. And confessional bodies that hold to specific confessions of faith.

Christian people band themselves together on the basis of their agreement as to the nature of the truth of God. Confessional Churches, especially, are founded upon specific statements of faith upon which their members are bound to agree. Within the areas of agreement other areas of freedom may be agreed upon. But the very nature of the confessional Church means that the whole Church agrees to the limits both of the restrictions and of the freedoms. There is no such thing as being (honestly) a member of a confessional Church and believing as one pleases. One may try to influence changes in the bases of agreement but one may not conscientiously violate them. That is what Church vows are for.

Any member of a confessional Church who does not subscribe to the agreement as to the nature of truth upon which the Church is established, or who teaches others to have disrespect for the Church’s Confession—as is done in some Presbyterian circles—is a person with little honor: in the words of the Scripture, worse than an infidel.

[Reprinted from THE PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL, January  30, 1963.]

For the Observer and Commonwealth
REV. DR. ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

Dear good old Dr. Alexander! How we loved him in New Jersey! Many a time have I seen people stop and look at him as he passed—even those who had never seen him loved and admired. The true Christian knew why. In the pulpit he was very different from many of the present day, but we all felt that he was indeed a minister of Jesus Christ unto us, and in the sacred desk, and at the communion table we seemed to be brought near to God and to Heaven. In this respect few were his equals and this power is a great gift. Many living servants of God know that they feel his influence to this day and thank God for it. Sabbath afternoon we met in the lecture room for conversation up on some subject before announced. Any student said what he wished, and they spoke freely, moderately and well. But our spiritual feast was when Dr. Alexander and Dr. Miller, and young professor Hodge, as he was then, sitting in their chairs would give us the essence of their matured thoughts. At the time I admired and relished it, but in riper years only could I really appreciate our privilege. There was no apparent effort, but the spring of living thought seemed to pour forth spontaneously. In this exercise Dr. Alexander excelled, and I thought could condense more ideas in a few sentences than any man I ever met. He was so devout and spiritual and earnest that we felt his words. “Pray”—on one occasion, he said, “pray on. And if in the closet alone with God you desire to remain longer and God seems indeed to be there,—Pray on; and if your heart inclines you to tarry longer—pray on and hour after hour—hour after hour. It is a heavenly gale, and you may make more advances than you have in a year, ‘Pray on.’ ”  —Memor.

—
— The Christian Observer 48.45 (10 November 1869): 1.
—

“Between the years 1824 and 1827, Drs. Alexander and Miller and Professor Hodge were (in the Presbyterian Church) the only public instructors of theological students. Dr. Alexander commenced this work in 1812. Twelve years afterward he was still vigorous in mind. In body he was rather small, with some gray hairs. As he sat in the recitation room, reclining his head upon his hand, small, piercing eyes looked upon the students, ready to approve their performances; or, when need be, to correct their mistakes. He appeared rather reserved, and yet in private was very paternal, exercising his thorough knowledge of human nature with great skill.

“A peculiarity in him was the clearness of his style in teaching and preaching. His great learning enabled him to use the very words—mostly of Saxon origin—by which his hearers comprehended the truth easily. This example of his should be imitated by young ministers of our time. While he adapted language to his subject, as when he wrote his volume on the Canon of Sacred Scriptures, and that on the Evidences of Christianity, his manner of preaching was more like his admirable book of Christian Experience—clear, practical and searching. There was no going outside of the themes of the Bible to find something new and entertaining. He condemned unprofitable speculations in the class room, and never practiced them in the pulpit. In his lectures on pastoral care to the students, he recommended special seasons of labor to promote revivals, wisely chosen, with the choice of proper persons to give aid in the preaching. I remember when there was a revival at Princeton, he went to give instruction to the young.”

—
— Jennings, S.C., Recollections of Useful Persons and Important Events within Seventy Years. Vancefort, PA: J. Dillon & Son, 1884. Pp. 99-100.
—

I’m just impressed that Knox made the cut. But of course, that was an earlier day . . .

Reverse side of the card, with legend:

One of the greatest lessons that I want to derive from this discourse, and one of the greatest truths that I want to impress is this, that there ought to be a very earnest looking for a different class of men from many of those who are coming upon the stage now, and we ought to be praying that God will raise up men of great endowments, of splendid gifts and large scholarship, and devoted consecration to his cause ; men qualified to become the leaders of the great sacramental army for the conquest of the world. There never was a time perhaps when there were as many mediocre men as there are now, men who do not attain, and who have no prospect of attaining that learning which makes the leader of the church, and which makes the whole church to rejoice that God has honored such men with such powers. That is the great want of the day in which we live.

I have often had occasion to remark that I regarded Spurgeon as the most widely useful man living, the greatest power for good in Great Britain, and now that he has been removed from his great sphere, if I were to say that he is lamented by all to whom he was known and honored, it would only be another way of saying that he was lamented throughout all Christian lands ; for where was he not known, and where was he not honored? That this is not an extravagant estimate I think will be evident when we consider into how many departments of useful labor he was permitted to enter and manifest the greatest efficiency and success. He was one of the few men of whom biography gives us any account, who was able to maintain his popularity from year to year without abatement. His was a popularity which, so far from weakening, grew and advanced with successive years. There never was a time perhaps when there was more originality, more freshness and power, more that makes a sermon rich and good, than during the last years of his life. It is not extravagant to say that he was the greatest power for good in Great Britain, when we remember that his church, or tabernacle, on the Surry side of the Thames, had in it six thousand sittings, and it often held a larger number of people than that, for many could not get seats, and were obliged to stand ; when we remember also that these sermons, every one of them, was reported and published that very week ; when we remember that sixty volumes of sermons were issued during his life ; when we remember that they were read, not only throughout Great Britain, but through Australia, Canada, the United States, West Indies, and wherever the English language is spoken — when we remember, again, that they were translated into a number of modern tongues, and thus went all over the reading world. That was but one of the departments of his great life work ; and, therefore, it is not an extravagant statement that was made by my nearest ecclesiastical neighbor, my brother of the Second Baptist Church, in an article which he published in the Religious Herald, in which he stated that, “England was but the platform on which Spurgeon’s pulpit stood, and his audience was the world around.” I have read many noble tributes to the memory of Mr. Spurgeon. I have read none finer than the one to which I refer by my Baptist brother.

But this was only one avenue of his access to the people. Look at the great orphanages which he founded, and which he found the means also of maintaining. Hundred and hundreds of poor, degraded and destitute children were taken from positions where they would have died in vice and squalor, and trained them to occupy places of usefulness and respectability in the world. Then remember that theological school which has, I believe, seventy or eighty students every year, young men whom he has sent out, with the impress of his own example and spirit upon them, to preach the gospel, as far as in them lay, just as he preached it. When we remember these things, we have some idea of the channels through which he reached the great outside world. I do not know of any history more instructive in another aspect of his convictions, how a man with the courage of his convictions, how a man who is intensely loyal to the truth, and fears nothing but what is wrong, will at last triumph over all opposition. Very few men have lived in England that were subjected to the ridicule and misrepresentation Mr. Spurgeon was during the early years of his ministry. Hundreds of stories were invented reflecting upon his manners, reflecting upon him in every way, and yet he pursued the even tenor of his way without even a murmur, with his bright, genial spirit unchilled by the abuse that was heaped upon him. He went on quietly, with the pluck and perseverance that characterized him, until the time came that he won over to himself all the parties in England, and not only all the parties, but all the different classes of society. The upper class, that at one time scorned him, recognized his worth at last. Men in the highest positions, in Parliament, and men of great learning recognized his virtues, and the great indebtedness Great Britain owed him, and acknowledged it in their public letters. He won, not only the regard of all classes, but the regard of all sects, which was a great triumph in a country like England, and perhaps no man has ever lived who has done more to bring all the people in harmony with one another, and promote good fellowship and kind Christian regard among the different denominations than he. It was his joy to know before his death, by the public testimony of the most eminent men in Great Britain, how he was esteemed by the men most qualified to speak on such subjects, both in the church and in the state.

I have, of course, my friends, been compelled to make this discourse much longer than I usually make my Sunday afternoon sermons, and  I have protracted it more than I intended, such is the richness of the theme. You will see that I have tried to condense, as I went along, in order to compress into the limits of the discourse what I had to say in connection with those to whom I have called your attention this evening.

There are one or two other facts in regard to this man’s great usefulness in the world. It is sometimes said that Calvinism is dying out, that the world is abjuring Calvinism. My friends, I do not care to defend Calvinism this evening, because that is not my object or my present purpose. I want to say that the most popular preacher in the world was the most pronounced Calvinist in the world! No man has preached to as many people in the last twenty-five years as Charles Spurgeon. No man who ever lived during all the ages, during all the centuries has, during his life-time, come into contact with as many of his fellow-men on religious themes as Spurgeon ; and, during all that time, he has not preached a sermon perhaps in which Calvinism was not the fibre and the spirit of the discourse. Don’t tell me that Calvinism is becoming unpopular, when the man who could draw more people than any other man on earth was sure to deliver a Calvinistic discourse. When a conceited young theological candidate once made a disparaging remark about Spurgeon to a distinguished prelate in the English Church, he said, “Stop, young man ; there are eminent men in Great Britain, but the only man in England that can get an audience, if he choose, of thirty thousand people, in twenty-four hours, is Spurgeon.”

Then, another thing that deserves our attention is this. Such was his loyalty to the truth that he would sacrifice friends for it if need be. There never was a man more affectionate or loyal to his friends, but if need be, he would sacrifice friends before he would sacrifice a principle. That is a very rare thing in this world. He withdrew from the Baptist Union, three or four years ago, and in making the separation he parted from some of the most intimate friends of his youth and manhood. Inasmuch as he thought they held erroneous views, especially with regard to the divinity of our Lord, that was something he could not brook ; and therefore, while he never lost his respect or regard for them as men, yet ecclesiastically there was a separation.

It so happens that I have spent more time in London than in any city in the world except Richmond. There is no city that I know as well. Three months, at one time in my life, I did not go out of the city, and for thirty years I have availed myself of every opportunity that I could get of hearing Mr. Spurgeon preach. I have heard him oftener than any man south of the Potomac, and  I think, therefore, that I have had some opportunity to judge and some opportunity to speak with the confidence that I have spoken with regard to this man. And strange to say, during all these years, I never sought to make his acquaintance, though I had hundreds of opportunities for so doing. The sole reason was that I did not want to encroach upon that time, for every moment of which I knew he had imperative use. The only interview that I ever had with him happened on this wise. I was at his church one Sunday, when he gave notice that immediately after the service the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper would be administered. You are aware that although he belonged to the Baptist Church, he was in favor of open communion, and on that occasion he gave an invitation that was so tender, to all Christians of all denominations that might be present, to unite in celebrating the sacrament, that I remained. When the service was over, as I was going out, and was passing down the aisle, I went within five or six feet of where he was sitting in a chair on the platform, and I went up and said, “Mr. Spurgeon, I have been a hearer of yours for thirty years, and I now embrace this opportunity of introducing myself, and of giving you my best wishes.” He asked me my name, and his reception was so kind and so affectionate that I have often regretted since that I did not avail myself of the many opportunities I had of knowing him personally.

I will never forget the first time I entered his church any more than I can forget the last, which is the time of which I have just spoken. The first time I visited his church, it so happened that I arrived a little late. Every seat was taken on the lower floor, as well as every seat in the first gallery. There are two galleries, one above the other. I went into the upper gallery, and succeeded in finding a seat at the farthest point that I could have been (almost in the roof of the house) from the preacher on the rostrum. He had not been preaching more than ten or fifteen minutes before I heard a stifled sigh or sob from the man who sat next to me. I had not noticed this man before in the great crowd, but I looked at him, and he seemed like a man whose business was in some menial occupation, dressed in his Sunday clothes. He was coarse and vulgar looking, with very hard features ; but the tears were streaming down his cheeks. He was quivering with emotion, and I said to myself, “If Mr. Spurgeon, standing at that vast distance, can so preach the gospel in its richness and sweetness as to cause every fibre in that man’s heart to vibrate, then he is preaching right, and that man is my brother in Christ Jesus,” and I felt like taking him by the hand, and telling him so.

Such is the man who has been taken away from us. If we regret that we did not avail ourselves of the opportunities we had of knowing personally the good and great that have lived to bless their generation, there is one compensation and one anticipation — in the long hereafter there will be time enough. In the world of recognition, in the world of reunion, in the world of holy fellowship, in the eternal future, there will be time enough to make the intimacies of an innumerable multitude of those who have so lived in this world as to bless their generations, and then gone home to the rest and recompenses of the eternal kingdom, into which kingdom and rest and joy may the Lord, in his infinite mercy, bring every one of us at the last, for his dear Son’s sake. Amen!

[excerpted from The Perfection of Beauty, by Moses Drury Hoge, D.D., LL.D.  Richmond: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1904, pp. 147-153.]

To give a small sample of what I’m finding in this volume, here are his recollections regarding the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, the prominent Philadelphia pastor who was so instrumental in the establishment of the Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Green also served for a time as co-chaplain of the U.S. Congress.

Dr. Ashbel Green was chaplain to Congress during the Revolutionary war, and was once a pastor in Philadelphia. He was for a time President of Princeton College, New Jersey; which position he resigned, and was elected Moderator of the General Assembly in 1824, where I heard him deliver the opening sermon the next year with a good deal of vigor and oratorical power. He became the editor of the Christian Advocate, a sound, conservative monthly magazine, which had great influence in the Church, though the editor was not so severe in his condemnation of error as some when the troubles were brewing which divided the Presbyterian Church. He was paternal and mild. In person he was rather large, with full face and swarthy complexion, wearing his diminished hair (not entirely gray) somewhat long. Though I had often seen him at the Princeton Seminary, I found when in the Assembly with him in 1834, that he was enfeebled. He sat thoughtfully and moved his face as though he was chewing, and yet I believe he eschewed the vile stuff—tobacco.

Many such short snippets in this little volume, and I will share more soon. The value of these recollections is the way in which the author relates the humanity of his subjects.

The first entry, for January 1, has already posted and new entries will post each day, just after midnight.

Rev. David T. Myers, an honorably retired PCA pastor, has written most of the entries which will appear throughout 2012. Each post will focus on some aspect of Presbyterian history, cutting across the breadth of American Presbyterianism. In addition, there will be a daily guide to reading through the Scriptures, using the McCheyne calendar, as well as daily readings in the Westminster Standards.

I hope you will pay a visit to this new devotional site, and that you will find it worth revisiting through the year.

“I have a peaceful study, as a refuge from the hurries and noise of the world around me; the venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me, and relieve me from the nonsense of surviving mortals.” — Samuel Davies

Another quote that I’m particularly fond of, reputedly by Ben Franklin:

“Only a fool loans books; half the books in my library were loaned.”

But apparently memory is a poor servant, or I heard wrong, for this site indicates the author of that quip was instead Anatole France:

Never lend books, for no one ever returns them; the only books I have in my library are books that other people have lent me.
- Anatole France

I think I like my version better. Anyway, all that by way of introduction and an excuse to present some bookplates from a few of the volumes in the research library at the PCA Historical Center:

Bookplates affixed inside a volume of the works of Jonathan Edwards.
This volume was originally owned by James H. Thornwell and then by
Rev. Thomas Dwight Witherspoon, whose papers are preserved at the PCA Historical Center.

Bookplate for book #489, dated 1859 and affixed inside Volume I of a Latin edition
of Calvin’s Institutes, affixed about the time he was installed in his first pastorate:

Another plate from Witherspoon’s library, this time from his copy of
The History of the Church of God, by C.C. Jones, apparently acquired while
Witherspoon was pastor of Second Presbyterian Church, Memphis, Tennessee:

From a book formerly owned by Henry H. Meeter, noted Calvin scholar:

And a bookplate from a volume previously owned by Dr. Robert G. Rayburn,
founding president of Covenant College and Covenant Theological Seminary:

A plate from a book formerly owned by the Rev. Harry H. Meiners, Jr.,
founding pastor of several churches in New Mexico.

A bookplate used by the Rev. R.W. Chesnut, an early 20th century
patriarch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod:

A plate from historic Maryville University in Tennessee:

A bookplate used by the Rev. Clarence Read Lacy, a Southern Presbyterian
pastor who had an active ministry in Appalachia:

[the Latin motto can be translated as "Prepare what needs to be done."]

One from a man with an unusual first name :

A portion of a bookplate from the church library of the Grand Cote Reformed Presbyterian
church. Book #34 in this case was Traditions of the Covenanters:

A plate from another church library, that of the Grace Street Presbyterian Church:

From the library of R.H. Reid:

An ink stamp used for the library of Christopher A. Clark,
stamped inside a copy of Buck’s Theological Dictionary:

And lastly, a bookplate inside a copy of The Dead of the Synod of Georgia,
by John S. Wilson:

[from "Christianity in Conflict," as published in Contemporary American Theology, edited by Vergilius Ferm (New York: Round Table Press, 1932), pp. 246-247.]

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 that provision of the Vestal Copyright Bill, nearly made a law in the last Congress, which would erect a Chinese wall of exclusion around our country and prevent our citizens from having contact with 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 cause 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.

[For those who might be interested in reading further, I have prepared a PDF edition of the full article, which is available here.]

So this past week I’ve busied myself putting up the content of newsletters published by two organizations that were formative for the organization of the Presbyterian Church in America. The first of these organizations, Concerned Presbyterians Inc., published its newsletter, THE CONCERNED PRESBYTERIAN, beginning in March of 1965 and ending sometime in 1976. (For some reason the last several issues were undated and so it is difficult to date them precisely.)

The second organization, Presbyterian Churchmen United, formed a few years later and its newsletter, CONTACT, ran from May 1970 until September 1973. Once plans for the organization of the “Continuing Presbyterian Church” were well underway, the PCU organization was quick to disband.

Of this last newsletter, CONTACT, there were four short messages that caught my eye. Reproduced here, to familiarize you with some of the content of this newsletter, is the first of these four messages. Here the Rev. Ben Wilkinson brings an address on “The Crisis in Evangelism”. He is speaking to the situation in the Presbyterian Church in the United States at that time in the late 1960s and early 1970s, just prior to the formation of the PCA.

Two final notes: First, please keep in mind that this transcription is being reproduced as it was originally printed.  If any of our readers might have copies of those issues that we currently are missing, please contact me at the PCA Historical Center. Second, please keep in mind that this article was written in 1970 and that the author’s words reflect that time period.

CRISIS IN EVANGELISM
An address delivered by the Rev. Ben Wilkinson to the Georgia meeting of Presbyterian Churchmen United.
[circa late spring, early summer, 1970]

At no point is the crisis in the Church quite so critical as in the area of evangelism. At no point is the crisis in the Church quite so damaging and damning to the lives and souls of men as in the area of evangelism. And at no point is the crisis in the Church so evident, clear, plain as in the area of evangelism. This is easily seen in the net gain membership statistics that I list below.

You will be aware that we get the annuual net gain by adding the number who are received by profession of faith, and those reactivated from the inactive roll. Subtract from that total the number lost to other churches by transfer of letter, the number dismissed to the inactive roll, and those deceased. This gives the net gain membership. We shall list the last 15 years since most of us have been living and active in this period. You will notice the tragic decline.

Net Gain Membership

1955 – 26,771
1956 – 22,051
1957 – 19,000
1958 – 20,766
1959 – 16,023
1960 – 13,592
1961 – 14,066
1962 – 10,522
1963 – 9,430
1964 – 7,100
1965 – 5,369
1966 – 5,179
1967 – 1,084
1968 – 944
1969 – 4,256

Understand that each statistic represents a life, a soul of a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a neighbor, a friend. They are not empty numbers. But perhaps more tragic are those who have not made the statistics because they have not been evangelized—a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a neighbor, a friend, a stranger—real, live people who live in misery and who die condemned eternally.

You would be interested too in churches established in the same period. You will notice the apex and the decline.

Number of Churches

1955 – 3,852
1956 – 3,875
1957 – 3,928
1958 – 3,948
1959 – 3,978
1960 – 3,995
1961 – 3,998
1962 – 3,997
1963 – 4,004
1964 – 4,007
1965 – 4,008 (apex)
1966 – 4,003
1967 – 3,960
1968 – 3,926
1969 – 3,926

These statistics can be better understood against the backdrop of our national population explosion. Our Church serves the most rapidly growing section of our nation. Only the state of California exceeds us. While the population soars, the number of churches subsides.

Join me in an analysis of the source of this tragic situation.

The basic problem is theological. The two totally divergent beliefs already explored—historic Reformed faith and Neo-orthodoxy and points further out began with different suppositions and move in different directions. The beliefs of the new theologies undercut evangelistic concern.

Let me illustrate. If a person is not convinced that all men apart from Jesus Christ are eternally lost, he will never be zealous in sharing Him. Why bother with the demanding strain and emotion draining efforts of evangelism if all your message is “Man, you are a child of God. Begin living like it”. The urgency is lost! Participation in our prime mission dies.

A second obstacle is that controversy in the Church has created confusion in the minds of many. And a confused person loses his desire to confront people with Jesus Christ. To do this consistently, conviction of the truth of Christ is necessary; the confusion of controversy is undermining this needed conviction. Weird experimentations replace Biblical and proven methods of evangelism. This Biblical evangelism is by most ignored in the confusion.

As our analysis continues the third difficulty is that most ministers are not prepared to do evangelism nor to train their people to do the same. It is my conclusion that this responsibility has to be laid at the doorstep of the seminaries for they are not preparing men to introduce a person to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

In the last over four years as an evangelist with the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship, it has been my joy to serve about 125 churches. It is appalling to discover the number of ministers who are admittedly unable to talk with a person and confidently present the gospel. A young minister wrote “when you get here, I want you to take me out and show me how to personally present Jesus Christ.” The minister I was last serving with said that the thing he should best be prepared at seminary to do, he is least prepared to do. He has never received training and has never felt at ease trying to talk to people about the Lord. He is regretfully typical. And if a minister cannot do evangelism, he certainly cannot lead his people to do so.

No man should ever be graduated from one of our seminaries who cannot and has not been used of God to lead others to know Christ. Nor should men ever be ordained as pastor, teacher, evangelist, or gr aduate student who are not being so used. Yet we are flagrantly doing this every year.

The fourth problem hindering our prime mission is that we have lost the atmosphere for doing evangelism. Though difficult to do, let me explain. Man is a social creature who likes to do what others are doing. Whereas the Christian should be willing to stand against the tide and do His work, many do not have what it takes. He is receiving little encouragement from his fellows to bear his witness. If he persists in doing so, he is looked on as suspect by some. The literature of our Church seldom speaks to this prime responsibility. The courts of our Church rarely pass actions directed to encourage our prime mission. The boards of our Church are busy “doing their own thing” and their thing is not encouraging evangelism. Special seasons are promoted, like Stewardship, Christian Education, Witness, etc., but never is there the promotion of a joint season to traiin people to go out and seek to guide others to Jesus Christ. Workshops are held on varied subjects, but not on why and how a human can share Christ with others. Too little preaching and teaching are done on the subject in the local church. Special revival/evangelistic series have been ridiculed.

For years presbyteries sent overtures to the General Assembly requesting the appointment of full-time evangelists. The negative reply was always the same—there is no need for usch in our Church. Then in 1958 Rev. William E. Hill of Hopewell, Virginia began a full-time evangelistic ministry alone. He found the need and the interest were there. Yet he was the only full-time evangelist in our Church. This white Southern Baptist had over 200. Then we wonder aloud, “Why is it those Baptists across the street are always growing and we are drying up? I can’t undestand it!” Can’t we?

Today Rev. Hill’s ministry has grown into the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship with nine full-time evangelists, 4 associate evangelists, one affililate, and a host of laymen who are prepared to assist voluntarily in evangelistic thrusts. Our emphasis of preaching-teaching-personal evangelism has found tremendous need and interest.

Outstanding successful evangelistic churches are officially prejudged and ignored–[churches such] as Coral Ridge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Briarwood in Birmingham, Alabama. Some of our most zealous ministers and laymen have gone outside the Church to support the evangelistic ministries of Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and others. Their gain has been our loss.

The atmosphere to encourage Presbyterians to do any type of evangelism in our Church is woefully thin. And worse, little is being done to remedy this.

The fifth point of heartbreak is that ministers and laymen who do believe in Biblical evangelism, as the prime mission of Christians here on earth, are lacking in commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord, and the unction of the Holy Spirit that will motivate them to consistent witnessing. It is a great deal easier to be for evangelism than to do it. It is easier to promote evangelism than to present Christ to another. It is easier to cry, “Why doesn’t somebody do something than to do evangelism ourselves.”.

Let me bring this down as close as I can. Now I talk to none but you, dear one. How long has it been since you sat down and premeditatively sought to introduce someone to Jesus as Savior and Lord? Have you ever done it? Our Board of Church Extension published a book some years ago stating that surveys showed that out of every 100 Presbyterians only 5 ever in their lives had sought to lead someone to Christ. Have you? We have no right to criticize the failure of others until we are ready to pay the price of evangelism ourselves. “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.” . . . James 4:17.

This is my brief analysis of the crisis in evangelism. “What in the world can one person do?” you cry. Let me list several things that are being done over our Church. If you want more information on any of these, contact me.

1. Gather together those in your church who are concerned for evangelism to begin to pray for openings to evangelistic involvement in your church and community. Let me warn you. Be ready! He is!
2. Your church can conduct a revival/evangelistic crusade. Such crusades when properly prepared for and earnestly prayed over are yielding good results in Christians awakened and the lost converted. There are evangelists available to assist churches in these efforts. PEF evangelists have assisted in efforts in the inner city with no members to churches of about 2000. Ask your Session to lead in this.
3. Your church can bring in a Personal Evangelism Institute to train and encourage your people in personal evangelism. There are evangelists and teams of laymen available to lead in this training period. Approach your Session to sponsor such training.
4. Your church can begin any of a variety of outreaching ministries in your area. Evangelistic Home Bible Studies can be begun among “the up and outers” of suburbia, teenagers, and the downtrodden. Boys and girls can be reached through the Good News Club approach (Bible Study, singtime, fun groups). Child Evangelism reminds us that nearly 70% of the boys and girls of the United States never are in Church Schools. Many public schools are still open to an evangelistic Bible teacher supported by local churches. Negroes are still open in numerous communities to have Bible studies presenting the gospel. And I might add that we have a major responsibility there. The most unevangelized group in our country is the Negro. It would be easier for the average Negro to hear the true gospel in the Congo than it is for him here. Let us repent of our failure and share the gospel with them. Get your creativity to work as to how you can under the Holy Spirit’s guidance get the gospel to more people. Condemned persons wait the “good news” you can bring.
5. Pastors, begin to preach an evangelistic sermon on Sunday Morning when the most lost people come. Preach clear, personal, and under the power of the Holy Spirit. Do not hesitate at giving an invitation for people to respond in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ. God still especially uses the preaching of the Word to the effectual calling of His elect.
6. At any point that you have influence in the committees of our Church, call for a re-directing of our efforts to Biblical evangelism. Offer and be ready to implement practical suggestions as to how this can be done.
7. You, as a born-again Christian, must begin to do personal evangelism if on one else does. The time is now for those who will do God’s first work in spite of what the majority do. And when a magnificent minority does their work, others will be drawn to join with them.
8. You can pray! Pray for revival of Christian experience in our Church and over our nation. Pray for reformation of Biblical theology. Pray for a return to the prime mission by the church—to evangelize. We are desperately in need of Christians with camel knees.

This is the overwhelming crisis in our Church in evangelism and some working solutions to its cure. Dear one, I plead with you. Don’t just sit there! In God’s Spirit, do something!

[For a helpful history on the societal rejection of the word "negro," see http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/when_did_the_word_negro_become_taboo.html]