Sharper Iron on voting for excommunication

A few weeks back Sharper Iron, an IFB blog, posted an article entitled Should Congregations Vote to Discipline? The details on the case are left very vague but the procedural problems were not.  A highly respected member of the church, seen as an elder / leader was accused of a offense and under went the first 2 phases of Matthew 18, an individual confrontation and then 2-3 others confirming it.  The case was brought before the pastor who found the evidence sufficient and the matter was brought before the congregation.  They did not believe the evidence to be sufficient to warrant excommunication and voted to retain the leader.  The pastor seeing this as a lack of trust decided to leave his position and found a church plant.   Ted Bigelow wrote the article above criticizing the congregation for the apparent reason of engaging in a broader debate.

Normally I'd answer Pastor Bigelow at the blog he wrote the post on but Sharper Iron is a closed blog.  I always like to notify people when I mention them here to give them a chance to respond.  I won't be able to notify Sharper Iron, so if anyone reading this is a member please post in my name a notification in the interests of fairness.  I'll try and notify Pastor Bigelow right after authoring this.

For Pastor Bigelow the structure of discipline is:
Step 1: Individual confrontation
Step 2: 2-3 others confront and determine if the evidence is true and certain, i.e. an inquest
Step 3: The 2-3 others go to church leadership to have their inquest confirmed
Step 4: Leadership informs the congregation to carry out discipline.

What he is arguing against is:
Step 4': The congregation votes on the excommunication via. evaluation of the evidence.

And he is absolutely correct that if the inquest is sufficient then this is a valid process.  But this structure where the inquest occurs in Step 2, rather than Step 2 is evidence gathering and evidence evaluation occurs in Step 3 puts tremendous stain on the 2 or 3 others.  Naive laity, often chosen for their closeness to the principles, without leadership oversight are being asked to conduct a full gathering of evidence.   That's a lot to ask.  And that's why typically Step 2 plays the role of an indictment and Step 3 is a full on trial, where evidence is gathered in both phases.

And in this case, the structural problems that Pastor Bigelow was arguing for became evident.  The pastor of the church in question found the Step 2 evidence convincing even thought he accused was still pleading not guilty and when he advanced it to Step 4 the holes in analysis of evidence became evident.  That is evidentially the congregation found the process wanting.  It appears from the article that the congregation determined that the Step 3 verification of the evidence collected in Step 2 did not meet their standards and they thus rightly refused to carry out sentence.  The pastor in this case was being rebuked for dereliction in his duty, during his Step 3 confirmation.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that rebuke, it sounds deserved.  He probably should have asked the congregation for permission to return to a more formal Step 3 process rather than resign in a huff.

Pastor Bigelow focus in the article is arguing that evidence evaluation should not be occurring during Step 4, because the information is so detailed.  And he is absolutely correct, the congregation should not be confronted with detailed conflicting evidence that they have to evaluate.  Rather what they should be doing is evaluating the findings and process that occurred in Step 3.  In other words, evaluating the trial.

And what it appears the trial consisted of was Pastor heard from the witnesses, decided the accused was lying and moved on.  There is obviously not enough detail to evaluate the information provided in this anecdote, but what I see from the anecdote is the 4 step process working exactly as intended; in this case Step 4 preventing an abuse that occurred in Step 3.   Which from the description provided sounds very much like the congregation doing their duty.

Pastor Bigelow's response,  the rest of the article, is an apology for a policy that the 2 or 3 others can simply never be questioned because that is questioning their judgement, "But a careful reading of Matthew 18:17 shows that the church is not called to a higher authority—that is, to judge the person’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the Lord calls the church to submit to the prior judgment of the two or three witnesses since they have “established the evidence...The Lord Himself placed the determinative authority of church discipline in the judgment of the two or three. He tasks them, and not the church, with the responsibility to prove unrepentant sin in Matthew 18:16.”  

The entire congregation is duty bound to fall in line excommunicate the accused based on a process they found wanting.  Given this is a fundamentalist board, this involves secondary separation so the effect of the excommunication is not just cast out the member, but to cast anyone who dares associate with the member since such a person isn't recognizing their non Christian status.    And that's assuming the congregation doesn't practice tertiary separation, i.e. separating from someone who refuses to separate from someone associated with the accused).

Given the extent of that penalty the evidence and process requirements should be simply staggering.  The idea that 2 or 3 semi-random people should be empowered to conduct the investigation with essentially no meaningful oversight is beyond irresponsible.  Matthew 18 outlines a 4 step process because the church carries the sentence and thus the church is going to be collectively held responsible for this judgement.  They are the ones in weeks, years and possibly decades to come that will need to defend these finding, defend this evidence, defend this process.    The Catholic church, centuries later is still called upon to defends its actions with respect to Galileo and Luther.  A strong case for a discipline process where the entire congregation is not involved in the details can be made.  But it is the duty of the church collectively to evaluate actions that can permanently damage the church, and excommunication is one of those actions.  I did two case studies for people who would like examples of less famous cases than Luther or Galileo (Anne Le Fert, Gresham Machen);   but the last 60 years of Fundamentalism I think work as an excellent as well.  

I think there is a genuine lack of understand of the importance of excommunication.  Once an excommunication happens the church is going to be asking others to join them in "calling for repentance" from an accused person who is going to deny the facts of the case; which means far from having to defend the facts to the congregation the church is quite likely going to have to defend the facts to world.  He's being cast out of the congregation and being publicly identified as non-Christian by the Church.  The church has to vote because the church is passing judgement.

I wrote a post a few years back on rules for due process.  I think they make it clear how much leadership needs to be involved in an excommunication and how much "dotting the i's and crossing the t's is required".  The bible establishes a standard that no evidence can be considered without multiple witnesses.  It does not establish a standard that 2 to 3 people can bind the church and force it take action. Thankfully though the comment section at Sharper Iron mainly agrees that Pastor Bigelow's process is dangerous and unbiblical.

Now the reason I say there is confusion is when Pastor Bigelow then compounds the entire thing, arguing that anyone who expresses any disagreement with the 2 or 3 is themselves guilty of serious sin, "Sadly, men’s ways can get involved in these matters and really make a mess of things. For example, congregational voting in the case of an unrepentant member could create a serious breach of faith with Christ. What if a church decides to discipline out an impenitent member by vote, but some in the church vote not to remove him? Those who vote not to remove the unrepentant member have sinned against the Lord by establishing their own verdict of innocence that opposes what the Lord already ratified."  

This seems to confuse excommunication with anathematization.  Excommunication is to declare someone no longer publicly part of the church.  Anathematization is to definitely declare that the person is damned.  Protestants generally do not believe churches are capable of anathematizing someone which is why lines like "what the Lord already ratified" seems to indicate Pastor Bigelow believes his church is in fact anathematizing and not simply excommunicating.   If he does comment here I think this is potentially the most interesting topic though it wasn't raised on Sharper Iron at all.  I suspect because the people on Sharper Iron are protestants and so simply reading excommunication even when Pastor Bigelow uses language consistent with anathematization.  (Here is a  more detailed post on the distinction).

As far as I know Pastor Bigelow is not a national figure, he just happened to be posting an article to a heavily read website.  So as much as possible I'd like to keep this away from the specifics of Grace Church of Hartford, unless he or an elder from Grace bring this up in the comments section.  

Father Bill Hausen

Bill Hausen was a catholic Priest in Pittsburgh. During the 1990s he was a heavy drinker and the church disciplined him by forbidding him from driving. After he became sober he wanted the discipline lifted but the church wasn't concerned. This caused him a great deal of alienation. So when the 2002 Catholic priest sex abuse scandals broke Hausen delivered a sermon calling for wholesale revisions to the priesthood. In particular the ordination of married men and women. As a result of this sermon a transfer order was issued Hausen refused to obey the order, and founded his own church (Christ Hope). At that he point he was excommunicated. The church is now succesful and pitches itself to x-catholics.

This is a great case because it gives a good example of the kinds of problems with the "send them back" strategy for church discipline. This case is messy and complicated. While I assume most Catholics object to schism, can a priest make a call for a policy change? Did the church have an obligation if the objected to his sermon to try him for that and not utilize transfer for discipline purposes? And what about the driving issue, if he were reinstated with many years sober wouldn't it be reasonable to demand this discipline be lifted? Messy, messy...

But it gets worse. The new congregation has been around for 6 years? What should happen to the people attending an openly schismatic church? In theory they have excommunicated themselves, what degree of restoration should be required? What if they choose to go to another (from a catholic perspective) schismatic church that honors discipline, like say an IFBC church. Should they be allowed? This is just a wealth of topics. There is no disagreement on the facts, but how to handle the situation under almost any hypothetical is complex.

So jump in build a scenerio and a solution.

For more detail:
2008 article City Paper
2004 Religious news story
Godspy on the new church
Pittsburgh Tribune article on excommunication

Conner v. Archdiocesse of Philadelphia

Discipline is non reviewable by courts. I've been looking for a good example of a case which shows this. This Spring in Pennsylvania there was a legal case involving a person punished and then defamed by the church. And the courts determined they can't determine the accuracy of the claim made by the church court. So readers should understand, if you are a member of a church you have zero protection against false allegations which the church upholds. As an added bonus this shows that courts can't intervene based on lack of due process.

The brief facts are a 12 year old, Eric Conner, has either a nail file or a knife in his possession when teachers are concerned there is going to be a violent incident. He is expelled and others in the community are informed he was carrying a knife freely. As a result shunning occurs and the boy is expelled from other activities in addition to school cutting him off from essentially the entire social life of his community. So the question before the court was:

1. Can the boy sue for defamation (mis-identifying the item in question)
   
2. Can the boy sue for negligence (lack of due process)
   
3. Can the church be held liable for the results of making false statements and disseminating them freely.

The answers to all 3 questions were absolutely not. Church discipline is not reviewable, the courts could not have been more clear:

All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed.

Note here, the issue was nothing of a doctrinal or even religious nature, the question was whether he was carrying a nail file or a small knife. As long as the boy remains a member of the church, the courts cannot review the accuracy of their claims, the process for those claims nor the conduct.

Also of question was the issue of dissemination. Again since Conner was a member he has no protection at all from dissemination within the community:

However, a decision by a religious organization to discuss the fact and import of an ecclesiastical disciplinary decision is, for purposes of the deference rule, no different than the imposition of the discipline itself. This Court would indeed be straying into “the sacred precincts” (Presbytery of Beaver-Butler, supra at 262, 489 A.2d at 1321) if it determined that a religious organization would be subject to civil liability for communicating to its community the existence of a disciplinary decision made and imposed by the organization. If our civil courts may not review an action that challenges the legitimacy of a disciplinary decision of a parochial school, then, in like fashion, they may not review an action that challenges the dissemination of information regarding that decision, at the very least within the narrowly circumscribed limits of the parish community.

In keeping with the recent discussion note the court specifically upheld the Guinn, that termination of membership terminates the protections of the religious institution regarding harassment. Once someone quits the 1st amendment protection of the church court is broken and the secular courts can step in for later actions, but not until they quit. Eric throughout remained a member of his parish.

In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma determined that invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against church elders were not barred by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when those defendants continued to publicly denounce the plaintiff as a “fornicator” after the plaintiff had terminated her membership in the church. However, the Court also held that the actions taken by the church elders to discipline the plaintiff prior to her withdrawal of membership in the church were shielded from judicial scrutiny.

In the case sub judice, Appellants have not alleged that they were denounced by Appellees after terminating their membership within the Catholic Church; rather, Appellants alleged only that Appellees had disseminated in the parish school community, during a limited period of time immediately following the incident, information regarding a disciplinary decision that involved Eric.

I can't think of a better case that explains why this blog exists than Conner. Obviously a 12 year old doesn't know about ecclesiastical courts and assumes his teachers aren't going to freely spread lies about him. But if he known how to protect himself, he could have filed an appeal in church court against the nun, called witnesses, and if he what he claims is true been vindicated so that his teenage years wouldn't have been destroyed. It also I think demonstrates clearly why I think it is a terrible idea to just blindly submit to discipline and "trust God".

The full decision is available online.

Why not to keep going on with discipline after a member leaves

The discussion on the blogs regard Rebecca Hancock has been about the right of the member to leave a church. But I think a more general discussion is called for. Why is a bad idea to continue church discipline on non members?

First off it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent. Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, "No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts." A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.

Permanent church covenants or statements that discipline will continue after a person tries to leave in no way alter any of the above. They are useful for establishing informed consent to starting a disciplinary process, and continuing it while someone remains a member. But, the law and the courts don't consider religious practice and affiliation to be a contract but rather a civil right. You can't sign away your right to quit a church any more than you can sign away your right to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology which was twice appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court was unequivocal in its finding that permanent consent cannot be granted. Consent to being disciplined, is like consent to being subjected to any other religious practice and can be revoked at will. For an older case, O'Moore v. Driscoll established that lack of consent to a ritual instantly removes privilege. In Scolinki the courts found that church discipline arises from common interest. A person voluntarily leaving the religious community has severed their common interest, which is why I frequently say that churches can excommunicate immediately or record what they want when a person leaves but not engage in an ongoing process.

Second it is a violation of international human rights law: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18).

The Organization of American States is even more explicit:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.

2. No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12)

Third it is a violation of religious tradition:

Every man has a right to withdraw from the Church whenever he pleases, in the sense explained in our former article -- a right in the sense that no human authority has the right to detain him. As before God, he has no more right to apostatize than to commit any other sin. He is bound to believe and keep the commandments. But men have no commission to force him to do either. If he wants to go, they must let him go. "They went out from us," says the Apostle -- not that they were expelled, but they went out of their own accord, freely, voluntarily -- "because they were not of us." They found themselves in the wrong place, and they left it. (The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol.4: Ecclesiastical, p. 370.)

To pick a Baptist quote:

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind. (By George Truett, Southern Baptist Convention, May 16 1920).

Among Presbyterians the notion of "erasure without consent of the session" or renouncement of jurisdiction is a well established right. For example the largest Presbyterian denomination, the PC(USA) is unequivocal that, "Members, church officers, elders and ministers have the right to renounce jurisdiction at any time. " To pick from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum the Orthodox Presbyterian Church considers leaving without permission of the session to be an erasure but not an excommunication, a termination of membership (Book of Discipline II.B.3.d.1,3,5).

To appreciate the breadth and unanimity of this I'll note that Jehovah's witnesses have a similar notion with different terminology. A member who is excommunicated is called, "disfellowshiped" while one who leaves on their own is "disassociated". There is a clear understanding that the Watchtower bible and tract society cannot claim disciplinary authority over a person who no longer considers themselves a member of the society (see wikipedia for more details).

And again to indicate the breadth, a person who declares themselves to no longer be a member of the church of the latter day saints is a "disaffiliate", and not subject to a disciplinary council (which can pronounce excommunication), "Nor are [Disciplinary Councils] held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action." (from A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings)

To summarize, it may be the case that the church views the status of one who voluntarily left as having excommunicated themselves, "erasure is an excommunication", or to quote Jim West, "The New Testament identifies two classes of excommunicates: first, those who have been formally sentenced by the Church of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:5). Second, those that excommunicate themselves by leaving the pale of the visible church in order to feast in the world (1 John 2:19)" (link). But the right to leave without engaging in an extended process, is guaranteed by church tradition.

Fourth, treating excommunication as more than simply leaving a church confuses excommunication and anathema. Excommunication is an involuntary separation of communion from a particular group of brethren. Anathema is a separation from God. If a person chooses to separate communion themselves then they are in some sense self excommunicating, by continuing an official process the church is asserting an authority over the status of their spirit, an authority they should not claim to possess. Pope John VIII makes this clear in the decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII), "... excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church". There is an earlier article on this site which addresses the distinction in more detail.

Fifth, it is unbiblical. Almost every passage dealing with discipline is specific to a church. For example Rev 2:20 the condemnation for the false teacher is only against the church of Thyatira and not against the church universal. 1Cor 5:12, "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside?" gives churches the responsibility to judge those within the church and excludes those outside the church. So to argue that judgment should continue is to argue that one can be part of a church even though openly leaving it. But 1John 2:19 says the exact opposite, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us."

Sixth, it is seen by the world as harassment and thus a negative witness. The cartoon I opened this with gives a good picture of how the world sees this. Churches enjoy substantial latitude in the United States because they are voluntary associations, that is everyone is a member because they have chosen to be a member and are in no way coerced into remaining members. Organizations that are mandatory or make it difficult to leave for example: places of employment, business partnerships, condominium associations are subjected to substantially higher levels of regulation and oversight. Society believes people need protections against organizations that are compulsory in a way they do not in organizations that are voluntary. Americans regardless of their affiliation believe strongly in the notion that religion is voluntary, religions that are seen in any way to move towards compulsory are thought of quite negatively and treated quite harshly.

To help Christians from disciplining communities see this the way the world sees it, lets use an analogy. Picture a person who at one time had joined a coven and agreed forever to allow themselves to be bled into a common chalice during circle rites. They quit the coven, does the coven have the right to continue to bleed them?

I'll close with a quote:

We read not that Christ ever exercised force but once, and that was to drive profane ones out of His temple, and not to force them in. - John Milton (1608 – 1674)

Rebecca Hancock

Rebecca Hancock is a 49 year old divorced woman who was formerly a member of Grace Community Church in Jacksonville, Florida. She got involved in a sexual relationship with a man, by the name of Frank Young, and told her church mentor about it. The mentor advised her to break off the relationship and she claims, “I must have gone through 10 breakups trying to end it, but after not having the power to do it I would go back, It was hard to give up somebody I love.” Hancock evidentally believed these conversations were confidential. In October '08 the mentor pulled her into the second phase of church discipline. There was an argument and Hancock told the membership, "I cannot believe you people are doing this. I’m not going any further — I’m never coming here again." The pastor then began to call to contact her and Young told him, "she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again." The church on December 8th issued a letter indicating they would move on to the third stage of discipline (tell it to the church) in January if she hadn't resolved the issue. At which point Miss Hancock concerned that her 18 and 20 year children who were members of the church would be embarrased by a public revelation in church took the issue public by telling Fox News (see Fox News Story). Since then it has spread to various Christian and secular sites.

OK so lets look at the legalities here. First off there is no legal right to confidentiality here (see Penley v. Westbrook), and again I'd caution readers that saying something in church waives legal right to privacy with very few exceptions. On the other hand it appears there was an expectation of privacy in the mentor relationship and it appears either the mentor did a bad job or the membership class didn't address the issue of discipline well enough. The membership class should have explained to Miss Hancock that she was joining a discipling church. Miss Hancock's statements to Fox seem to indicate genuine shock and total ignorance of the discipline proess. That being said nothing in the letter seems unusual for 3rd phase discipline.

The only issue here is whether she is still a member. She has seemed to indicate a desire to permanently sever all relations with the church, and her boyfriend is unequivocal that she no longer regards herself in a pastoral relationship with Grace Community Church. Further she is now active in another church and refers to herself as "no longer a member" (see news 4 story). The news story isn't specific enough for me to know for show whether she has qualified in leaving the church under church law (see how to leave a church) or whether her transfer with irregularities was conducted properly. But I would say that her statements were so strong that under secular law she most certainly did sever her relationship and had they "told it to the church" Grace could be subject to a civil suit (see Guinn v. Church Christ of Collinville). However, at this point she converted herself into a news story so the civil issue dealing with slander is dead.

It is hard to make many more conclusions because Fox News didn't dig. I'm not sure how clearly discipline is explained in the membership class. I would have to say that for a woman who is concerned about the embarrassment of being publicly outed, presenting her story to the national press, seems odd. That is, I don't quite understand how she believes revelation in the national media is going to be less difficult for her children, so her expressed rationale could have been better probed. Still, I applaud her becoming cause of her life rather than an effect. Having taken that attitude earlier would have killed the discipline outright, i.e. taking ownership via. a letter of termination likely would have given her the same level of control without the need of national press coverage. Its also unclear how the transfer / membership termination process got so botched up.

I'll offer Grace Church a chance to comment on this article. But what this smells like is a lack competence but no actual misconduct on the part of the church. On the other hand Mrs. Hancock's story has holes in it which make her sound like either a fool or a bit of a nut job. But in the end this may be editing from the news article.

Web discussions on this:

• Pyromaniacs
  
• Dallas News
• Seventh Sola
• 9-Marks
• John Aron Martin
• Hot Air
• Sharper Iron
• From my heart, out of my mind (Don Bryant)
• Alpha and Omega (James White)

A few quotes by Ellen White

SDA is often accused of being a cult. Generally I've found them to be pretty reasonable on most issues. Here are a few quotes regarding discipline from Ellen White herself. We've recently been discussing what good leadership would do in trying to take a church which has become overly harsh and judgmental in a more reasonable direction. Those churches which many of my regular readers come from might do well to learn something from what she had to say to her lower leadership:

Perverted Discipline

In dealing with the erring, harsh measures should not be resorted to; milder means will effect far more. Make use of the milder means most perseveringly, and even if they do not succeed, wait patiently; never hurry the matter of cutting off a member from the church. Pray for him, and see if God will not move upon the heart of the erring. Discipline has been largely perverted. Those who have had very defective characters themselves have been very forward in disciplining others, and thus all discipline has been brought into contempt. Passion, prejudice, and partiality, I am sorry to say, have had abundant room for exhibition, and proper discipline has been strangely neglected. If those who deal with the erring had hearts full of the milk of human kindness, what a different spirit would prevail in our churches. May the Lord open the eyes and soften the hearts of those who have a harsh, unforgiving, unrelenting spirit toward those whom they think in error. Such men dishonor their office and dishonor God. They grieve the hearts of his children, and compel them to cry unto God in their distress. The Lord will surely hear their cry, and will judge for these things.--Review and Herald, May 14, 1895

Control Self First

Those who control others should first learn to control themselves. Unless they learn this lesson, they can not be Christlike in their work. They are to abide in Christ, speaking as He would speak, acting as He would act,--with unfailing tenderness and compassion.--Review and Herald, April 28, 1903. {ChL 65.2}

Pastoral Ministry 36.1:

Those with incorrigible, unbending, stubborn traits of character, when transformed, make the most valuable ministers.--Ministers have been presented to me, with their course of action and their character before they were converted--the hardest and most incorrigible, the most unbending, the most stubborn--and yet, every one of these traits of character was what they needed in the work of God. We don't want to kill that. It is needed in order to fill important positions of trust in the cause of God. There must be a transformation of character. The leaven must work in the human heart, until every action is in conformity to the will of God, and they are sanctified; then they become the most valuable. It is this very kind of individuals that God can use in the different branches of His work.--9MR 61.PaM36.1

Gresham Machen (Invalid Excommunication part 4)

Anyway who is a regular reader will be shocked that Machen made the list, Machen spent a lifetime promoting the intolerance that this blog has frequently attacked. Had Machen's plan for requiring the statement of faith be interpreted to his standards, that is the removal of all liberal preachers from the church, the PCUSA would have had to carry something on the order a ten minister excommunications per day every day for over ten years. And what about the membership that would have refused to honor these excommunications? Then we are up to 1000 excommunications per day, a level of purging that would have required a state apparatus, and since none would have been forthcoming a failure. There wouldn't be a PCUSA if Machen had won, the debate with Machen leaving the PCUSA ended the only way it could have with a strong vote for tolerance, a virtue this blog supports. Moreover Machan wasn't excommunicated he resigned after being suspended from ministry. To compound things further in Machen's case I believe he was guilty of what he was tried for.

So the natural question is, why did he make the list of invalid excommunications? His trial was seen as farce of justice and the charges themselves were and still are even questioned. Even the opponents of Machen were offended. That is a valid excommunication carried out, without broad support can undermine the sense of justice required for church discipline to be effective. What is important about the Machen case is it shows how a failure in process, even when the defendant was guilty can do incredible harm. The mainstream denominations never recovered from the damage that the trial of Machen did them. All feeling that there was a prohibition against schism were obliterated in America of 1937 during the Machen trial. What had been conflict and tension before Machen's trial became open warfare.

The reader may want to see Six Steps of a Fundamentalist Revolt to see the natural progression that Machen was attempting to follow. It is first important to set the scene. The devastation of World War I, and the heavy use of propaganda that the government deployed create a profound skepticism about authority, which led to an explosion in popularity for the modernist cultural movement, including in the area of faith. While not in the majority of American clergy, Americans that subscribed to parts of German theology in a meaningful way were a substantial minority. Adolf von Harnack contended now that modern man rejected the supernaturalism of the bible the focus of Christianity and churches should be on the moral teaching of Jesus; a move away from John/Romans as the center of the bible toward the "red letter" parts of the synoptic gospels. Rudolf Bultmann had contended that historicity (the myth) was not central to the Christian faith (the kerygma) and through demythologizing one could recover the faith. To rephrase, a bit inaccurately but in modern American protestant terms, he argued that inerrancy was not crucial for a doctrine of infallibility. At the same time the prewar anarchist / communist social unrest had become the mainstream labor movement and woman's suffrage had been enacted. So for many Christians the way forward was for the churches via the social gospel to resume their leadership for the salvation of mankind (see defense part 6 for earlier history).

A conservative theologian by the name of Gresham Machen wrote a book in 1921 called "The Origin of Paul's Religion", where he asserted that the epistles were consistent with the teachings of Jesus, a response to American's who had been influenced by Harnack's ideas He was familiar with German theology due to having spent 1905 in Germany learning from Wilhelm Herrmann a leading theologian of liberal Christianity. The book was well received by theologically orthodox Presbyterians and Machen established a reputation as one of the defenders of orthodoxy against modernism.

Until the publications of Origin Machen had been known as a professor and a bit player in opposing the "Philadelphia" plan, an ecumenicist plan attempt by John D. Rockefeller and the Foreign Missions Board of the PCUSA to share foreign missions costs across most mainstream denominations. The Philadelphia plan collapsed quickly mostly due to non presbyterians wanting a more neutral organization, the Federal Council of Churches now called the National Council of Churches. Ecumenical programs were generally quite liberal, and so fundamentalists opposed them. Machen in particular was quite concerned with how they helped to create a "spiritual Christianity" divorced from either doctrine or historical revelation, "Christianity can not be spiritually true and historically false", in total opposition to the Bultmannesque theology of the plan's supporters. At was at this point the religious right was born. A unification of nativism, hatred of liberal Christianity and hatred of the liberal wing of the Republican party later to be headed by John D's son Nelson Rockefeller. Of course in the end the Religious Right would be more ecumenical and strive together over a wider group of issues than Rockefeller could have hoped for, a case of losing the battle and winning the war perhaps?

In 1923 Machen became a leader of the budding reaction movement with Christianity and Liberalism, a book that argued liberal Christianity was not Christianity at all. :

In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called "modernism" or "liberalism."

The book was an apology for a policy of asking all ministerial candidates to explicitly affirm support for the inerrancy of scripture and the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, miracle-working power, and bodily resurrection of Christ. This policy had passed In 1910, 1916 and 1923 the General Assembly of the church, distressed by the liberal theological tendencies of some ministerial candidates, declared that all candidates for ordination ought to be able to affirm "the fundamentals" in addition to the traditional confessions. What happened in the 1920s was the debate broke into the open: Shall the Fundamentalist Win, Shall Unbelief Win; where characteristic of debate at a lower level of intensity.

In 1924 the Auburn Affirmation (see appendix at and of article) directly challenged the 5 fundamentals as being essential for ministers:

Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.

The 174 signers agreed to hold to scripture and the Westminster confession but not to the fundamentalist interpretation of those documents. In 1925 a split in the denomination was averted by the formation of a committee which in 1926 affirmed that the General Assembly was not authorized to create a litmus tests for candidates without the consent of the presbyteries. Which is to say in 1926 the General Assembly determined that the PCUSA would have a policy of toleration for liberals.

Its worth commenting why the conservatives lost in 1926 when they hadn't in the 1890s during a similar attempt at liberalization. The reason was the denomination was starting to split on gender lines. Woman were in very large numbers starting to support enhanced roles for woman and woman's ordination, theological liberalism was in favor of this position while theological conservatism was opposed. So, while nothing remotely approaching a majority of the PCUSA members supported higher criticism of scripture, a substantial minority if not a majority of the membership were willing to follow the liberals out the door if the denomination had split. And without the liberal counter balance the denomination would have gotten more conservative and pushed out moderates; so the moderates sided against the conservatives. And while no one knew this in 1926, the membership would continue to get more liberal for the next 60 years. Quite simply had this gone the other way, the PCUSA would be a fraction the size it is today.

The effect of losing on Machen and the Conservatives is they became much more strident and hostile. From 1926-1929 the liberals reorganized Princeton Theological Seminary to increase cooperation with the denomination. The effect was to disempower Conservatives and in 1929, Machen set up Westminster Theological Seminary as a conservative alternative. This wasn't quite schism but it was very close.

Immediately after this the next battlefield became the board of missions. William Ernest Hocking wrote a document for the Presbyterian church along with other churches called "Re-thinking missions a laymen's inquiry after one hundred years" (text pdf Time-Magazine article). The article argued for cultural sharing rather than gospel sharing being the core for missions work. In his view missionaries should be better trained and financed, they needed to cooperate with each other and even with non Christian religions in their aid work. A PCUSA missionary to China by the name of Pearl Buck went on a speaking tour in the US in favor of the report, and raised publicity sky high for the Hockings Report.

It is at this point that Machen and Buck clashed. Buck was completely at variance with the stated policy of the missions board: she denied core Presbyterian doctrines like salvation by faith alone and the virgin birth, “To some of us He is still the divine Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. But to many of us He has ceased to be that.” She advocated for humanitarian efforts to be the principle purpose of missions and joining with non Christian religions and even defend the Chinese government's "protections" regarding doctrines like original sin which she consider a noxious superstition. Machen argued that missionaries should hold to all the 5 fundamentals and attacked Robert Speer's management for allowing people like Buck to serve and continue to serve.

In Machen's view Pearl Buck and other liberals were preaching apostasy from a PCUSA subsidized pulpit, "And so another opponent of the gospel enters the councils of the Church, and another false prophet goes forth to encourage sinners to come before the judgment seat of God clad in the miserable rags of their own righteousness." And he wasn't wrong in his assessment, Buck had been quite open in her views, “I do not believe in original sin”. And from Machen's perspective it was much worse that she was adored and respected with an audience, at least for her fiction, of millions. Buck was not some obscure missionary denying the virgin birth and preaching on the equality of all faiths but among Americans the most well known contemporary missionary of her time. Pearl Buck was perfect example for Machen of how liberalism was not a variant of Christianity but rather another faith and thus she presented an excellent foil for Machen in demonstrating how the moderates by not demanding strong adherence to the creeds had allowed variants they never would have intended to become acceptable views within the church. Christianity and Liberalism has a terrific passage which addresses his attitude towards the "close enough" ecumenicalism which Hockings and Buck were advocating:

What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law ... Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity. As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist to-day … Paul certainly was right. The difference which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ.

To put Pearl Buck in perspective it is important to realize, the extent of her popularity. She was among the top 10 most respected woman in America for 20 years running. Her fiction had sold millions of copies and would continue to do so for many years. She had won the Pulitzer prize for The Good Earth in 1932, and would go on to win the Noble prize for literature making her the first American woman ever to win the Pulitzer, and one of only 3 people to win both a Noble and a Pulitzer. Which is to say that Pearl Buck was to the PCUSA what Tom Cruise is to Scientology today. She really was capable of speaking to the nation.

It seems to me in reading Pearl Buck's writings she was struggling to find a language for inventing multiculturalism. To use that language, she was arguing that the Asian community was discovering its own voice and history and growing in its understanding of how western imperialism harmed them. Anti-western attitudes that were developing made it likely that the entire east Asian missionary program could end very shortly if hearts did not shift. Pearl Harbor, the rise of Chinese nationalism and then Communism which led to the total collapse of East Asian missionary work proves that Buck was absolutely correct in her assessment. Buck's proposal for missionary work: genuine cultural integration, really understanding the people and working alongside them rather than above was the technique the communists employed successfully to win millions of converts (see The Ugly American). Machen, a man who wanted to control foreign missions while knowing nothing about the people missionaries aimed to convert provided a perfect foil for her present the alternative to the rethinking of foreign missions. We shall never know what would have happened, had the Hocking/Buck's proposals been accepted. It might have been too little too late. But it might have led to a hundred million new converts.

A heresy or an excommunication trial for Pearl Buck would be unmitigated disaster from the moderate's perspective. On the other hand Machen's attacks were doing real damage to donations. Machen followed up his attacks on Buck in speeches blaming the problems on Robert Speer (head of the Presbyterian Missions, and a man who was known for ecumenicism) with a book and then his own missions board. Machen's proposal was cutting off money to missionaries during the depression which Speer saw, not unreasonably, as extremely threatening to the well being of his people. That is for Speer and many other moderates Buck and Machen had put their own personal pet projects above the interests of the denomination. Conversely Buck and Machen both benefited from the controversy their fight generated as it helped publicize their minority views. The extremists from both sides were successfully putting pressure on the moderates by taking this dispute public and the moderates were horrified about the possible outcomes.

That is for Speer these two intellectuals were being self indulgent and destructive. The depression was on and raising money for missionaries was difficult. The Presbyterian church had a huge missionary commitment and infrastructure in East Asia that would take a generation or more to replace if funding levels were not maintained. A warm discussion about technique might have been useful; but that was not what they were doing both of them were attempting to deliberately provoke their own followers and were indifferent to offending the other side's donors. Machen with his books and the establishment of his own missions board, was diverting badly needed funds from the base of small conservative donors. To openly embrace Machen's ideas would have required repudiating the international peace movement led by Rockefeller which was a huge source of funding. What was vital to Speer, was that believers in international peace through the great commission and conservative Christians which saw the great commission as a Christian duty, continued to view themselves as working on a common project.

Machen's fundamentalism insulted the believers in international peace by questioning whether they were Christian at all. Buck went out of her way to mock fundamentalists. Her comments about the Hocking's report were designed to be an offensive parody of the doctrine of inerrancy, “I think [the Hocking's report] is the only book I have ever read that seems to me literally true in its every observation and right in its every conclusion." Many moderates felt that the language these two, and their supporters were using created the hardness of hearts that led to denominational splits. Any drop in funding could force hundreds of missionaries out of the field or worse leave them unfunded and stranded. And these two were from Speer's perspective cooperating quite well on making sure that a drop in funding would be inevitable. When Buck was forced to resign. Speer's own secretary was furious with him for pushing out Buck rather than Machen. Perfect evidence for what Speer was worried about. Both of them in their own ways were doing tremendous damage to the denomination's missions program.

Finally many moderates not concerned directly with missions saw Machen as preaching donatism. For them a key distinction needed to be made between a institutional heretical church and a church which is tolerant of a heresy. Machen in his broad based accusations was failing to make that distinction and hence himself committing the donatist heresy.

That is, there were 3 radically different viewpoints and all 3 of them were right. It wasn't question that any of them were wrong, but rather a question of priorities and values. In the end the moderates understood they couldn't side with either in this politicized environment and had to force both out. Henry Coray tells a story that he intends as a defense of Machen but really shows the sorts of pressures siding with either would have caused (note Das is a pet name for Machen):

"I wrote to the Board," said Das, "and asked what the Board intended to do about Mrs. Buck. The Board answered, saying, 'Dr. Speer (one of its secretaries) is a very fine man. 'I answered,' I agree that Dr. Speer is a fine man, but I would like to know what you are going to do about Mrs. Buck?' The Board's reply was, 'Dr. Machen, why are you so bitter?'" (Henry W. Coray essay)

Randy Oliver notes that Machen was seen by opponents as, “temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him.”

And here I believe a decision was made to get rid of them both. This in my opinion was where the disaster happened. Not because I believe Machen was innocent, I absolutely believe he in fact was putting his pet project above the interest of the denomination. Rather there did not exist the necessary support for an excommunication. The attacks on the 8 ministers involved in Machen's missions board would pass by a narrow margin but without widespread support. And like any martyrdom once Machen was removed the issue would refocus, the subtle and situational aspects would be forgotten and Machen's "excommunication" (removal from office) would be taken entirely out of its context to become a broad indictment on all of mainstream Christianity. Here is how this unfolded.

After Buck's resignation the general assembly instructed Machen's board of missions to disband in the directives of the General Assembly of 1934. The General Council of the church, operating under what it called its "constitutional authority" "to superintend the concerns of the whole church," prepared a lengthy document, "Studies of the Constitution," contained in the Journal of the General Assembly of 1934, which concluded with specific directives. The four were:

1. That "The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions" be and is hereby directed to desist forthwith from exercising any ecclesiastical or administrative functions . . . .
2. That all ministers and laymen affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, who are officers, trustees or members of "The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions," be officially notified by this General Assembly through its Stated Clerk, that they must immediately upon the receipt of such notification sever their connection with this Board, and that refusal to do so and a continuance of their relationship to the said Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, exercising ecclesiastical and administrative functions in contravention of the authority of the General Assembly, will be considered a disorderly and disloyal act on their part and subject them to the discipline of the Church.
3. That Presbyteries having in their membership ministers or laymen who are officers, trustees or members of "The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions," be officially notified and directed by this General Assembly through its Stated Clerk to ascertain from said ministers and laymen within ninety days of the receipt of such notice as to whether they have complied with the above direction of the General Assembly, and in case of refusal, failure to respond or noncompliance on the part of these persons, to institute, or cause to be instituted, promptly such disciplinary action as is set forth in the Book of Discipline.
4. That each Presbytery be and hereby is instructed to inform the ministers and sessions of the particular churches under its jurisdiction that it is the primary responsibility and privilege of all those affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America to sustain to the full measure of their ability those Boards and Agencies which the General Assembly under its Constitutional authority has established and approved for the extension of the Kingdom of Christ at home and abroad.
   

Machen's argued that the general assembly did not have the authority to pass such a resolution and secondly that the sovereignty of Christ, overrode their authority since the Presbyterian Missions Board had allowed heresy to creep in. This resulted (as expected) in Machen being charged with disobedience for maintaining a separate board of missions even when instructed not to. The specific charges were essentially (cite):

1. Disapproval, defiance, and acts in contravention of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
2. Not being zealous and faithful in maintaining the peace of the Church.
3. Contempt of and rebellion against his brethren in the Church.
4. Conduct unbecoming a minister of the Gospel.
5. Advocating rebellion against the constituted authorities of the Church.
6. Violation of his ordination vows.

Machen's defense was a proclamation on the doctrine of Christian freedom. He presented a five-point argument, with the body of the pamphlet devoted to a defense of his basic five points: (1) that obedience to the command would mean supporting a foreign gospel; (2) that it would mean substituting a human authority for Christ's; (3) that it would mean acquiescence to a mandatory Church tax; (4) that all of these things are forbidden by the Bible; and (5) that he had a full right to remain in the Church in spite of his refusal to acquiesce.

The question of mandatory contributions to the official Church agencies was considered at length by Machen, since he believed that such a tax was an extreme infringement on the personal liberty of Church members. He indicated that obedience to the order in the way demanded by the General Assembly would mean acquiescence in the principle that support of the benevolences of the Church is not a matter of free will but the payment of a tax enforced by penalties.

Thus if the members failed to recognize the authority of the Assembly over the Independent Board or over them and resign they were considered by the General Assembly actually to be guilty of a disorderly and disloyal act. That is for all practical purposes the General Assembly had already convicted them before any trial could be held, and this was all borne out in the very decision which later came in 1936 the court found against Machen, "When a church is organized under a written Constitution, which contains prescribed provisions as to giving for benevolent purposes, every member is in duty bound to observe those provisions with the same fidelity and care as he is bound to believe in Christ and to keep His commandments according to the doctrinal provisions set forth in that same Constitution."

One will note that the court didn't address the core of Machen's argument either in the fact that the missionaries were preaching apostasy nor did they address the legality of the general assembly's acts. Their argument was that ministers were ordained and the acts they were ordained for were: leading the singing of psalms, reading the Bible, preaching, catechising, the sacraments, a collection made for the poor, and dismissing the people with a blessing, violation of the collection was how they saw Machen's acts. So from a purely legal standpoint this might have been excusable but given Machen had a following this was seen as ignoring the defense. (newspaper article on the trial)

Before long several members of this board were brought to trial. I do not exaggerate when I assert that their trials constituted one of the greatest travesties of justice in ecclesiastical history. In 1934 the church made the astounding declaration: "A church member or an individual church that will not give to promote the officially authorized missionary program of the Presbyterian Church, is in exactly the same position with reference to the Constitution of the Church as a church member or an individual church that would refuse to take part in the celebration of the Lord's Supper" (Manual of Presbyterian Law for Church Officers and Members, published by the Presbyterian Church in the USA in 1936, p. 115). On that made-to-order and much worse than flimsy ground the defendants were condemned. But never once were they permitted to say in their defense why they had organized the Independent Board. The issue was patently doctrinal, but every doctrinal reference was consistently ruled out by the court as irrelevant. (R. B. Kuiper)

A good analogy is the trial of Luther before the court of Worms. In Luther's case the secular court couldn't determine whether the books where heretical, that was solely the church's authority. So in the secular court the only acceptable defense would have been Luther to prove the books weren't his. Because the secular court did not try the core issue, that is were Luther's books heretical, the secular verdict against him lacked popular support. Similarly Machen couldn't defend himself on the grounds that the board of missions had failed to act in a way consistent with its mandate. This created a feeling that the trial was a sham, part of a liberal coup d'etat not a religious court. Gary North's Crossed Fingers, is a very detailed history but the overriding theme of the book is that that the Liberals lied and stole the denomination.

This is a history of the liberals' strategy of infiltration and conquest of the Northern Presbyterian Church. This book is also a study in what could be called ecclesiastical entomology: bugs. Specifically, it is a study of ecclesiastical termites: liberals. By 1921, these voracious termites had eaten away so much of the Presbyterian Church that Princeton Seminary's greatest living theologian, Warfield, on his deathbed called the entire denomination rotten wood... Had it not been for the defection of earlier generations of Christians, we would not be in the place we are today: looking in from the outside on institutions that once belonged to God and His people rather than to the covenant-breakers who now occupy positions of institutional authority.

And this sense of grave injustice moved into fundamentalism. At first it just resulted in a minor split, Machen and a small group of followers left the church (time article). So in June 11, 1936, the Presbyterian Church of America (the name was changed to Orthodox Presbyterian Church after losing a lawsuit). He took with him only 4200 people (article from Time during the process).The conservatives themselves split into essentially the formation we see today, three splits within the conservative camp itself:

1. The split between those who supported and those who opposed the founding of the Independent Board.
2. Which led to a subsequent split of Westminster Seminary.
3. The second split contributed to the split in the Presbyterian Church of America. The Orthodox Presbyterians opting for strict denominational control through church boards and the Bible Presbyterians for Independent Agencies. The bible presbyterians were led by Carl McIntire who became notorious for actions like picketing outside of World Council of Churches meetings about WCC collaboration with the KGB.

What these splinter groups took with them though were the the ideas in Christianity and Liberalism. There was widespread belief Liberalism was another religion entirely. It took time but in a generation the evangelical movement came about which had no compunctions about attacking the mainline denominations, the "seven sisters" ( Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the American Baptist Churches, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church) in the same way Machen had attacked liberalism. Because Evangelicalism believed Christianity and Liberalism they treated the mainline denominations like they were part of another religion. So what would become the evangelicals had no qualms about seeing them as genuine enemies, and in their efforts they were perfectly content to see a situation in which for every member they took another left the church in all but name forever.

When the invaders surrender cultural territory, we will regain it--not inside the four walls of liberal churches but in the culture at large. As for liberal churches today, let the dead bury the dead. Large brick churches in declining sections of town are not worth re-capturing. The heating and cooling bills alone would strap us. Had it not been for the defection of earlier generations of Christians, we would not be in the place we are today: looking in from the outside on institutions that once belonged to God and His people rather than to the covenant-breakers who now occupy positions of institutional authority. (Gary North)

Also because of the fact the movement was born in frequent splits, while paying lip service to the notion of large denominations they de facto accepted the congregationalist model and thus became instrumental in undermining the meaningful authority, financial resources and scope of denominations. The trial of Machen was a minor injustice done for pragmatic reasons that has gone on to cost the PCUSA 1/2 its membership and all its growth.
____________________

Additional resources:

• Fundamentalist-Modernist Conflict on Wikipedia
• The Presbyterian Conflict by Edwin H. Rian
• PCUSA journal article on fundamentalist-modernist conflict
  
• Fighting the Good Fight, A Brief History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church by D. G. Hart and John Muether
• Independent Board trials details, from the American Presbyterian Church. Also their history chapters 10 and 11
• Credenda Agenda book reviews on the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. It speaks at length about why Machen was antagnistic to liberalism during the 1920s.
• Historical Background and Development of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
• Machen articles on the OPC website. Of particular interest his article on the distinction between fundamentalism (orthodoxy) and the evangelical movement.
• Long list of articles on Mister Richardson
  
• Biography of Machen on theopedia, and another from Craig Hawkings of Apologetics information
  
• Theological analysis of Machen by William Moore
• How the Presbyterians further scattered after the formation of the OPC.

  The Machen movement was born in the controversy over liberal theology. I have no doubt that Machen and his colleagues were right to reject this theology and to fight it. But it is arguable that once the Machenites found themselves in a “true Presbyterian church” they were unable to moderate their martial impulses. Being in a church without liberals to fight, they turned on one another. (John Frame)

• What is Christianity 1899-1900 University of Berlin lecture series by Adolf von Harnack, (mentioned above) gives a good example of the liberal theology Machen was arguing against
• 3 types of fundamentalist today by 9Marks
• The Fruit of Compromise by Pickering, which is an apology for separating off Christians that disagree, this one however directed by fundamentalists at evangelicals. It also gives the example of Machen.
• Current website for the independent board of Presbyterian Foreign Missions.
• Christianity and Culture an address by Machen in 1912 which shows his attitude towards cultural Christianity a decade before he became known for it.
• Review of D. G. Hart's Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America.  Also by Hart, J. Gresham Machenand the Problem of Christian Civilization in America

___________________________

Appendix on Auburn Affirmation:

The Auburn Affirmation was a response to the "5 point test" (note their are really 6 points, the name came from the 5 fundamentals which did not include the 6th item on this list) which was given as a test of orthodoxy:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus) (Matt 1:18)
   
3. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement (Heb 9)
   
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matt 28)
   
5. The authenticity of Christ's miracles
6. His pre-millennial second coming

The statements of the affirmation were (full text):

• The Bible is not inerrant. The supreme guide of scripture interpretation is the Spirit of God to the individual believer and not ecclesiastical authority. Thus, “liberty of conscience” is elevated.
• The General Assembly has no power to dictate doctrine to the Presbyteries.
• The General Assembly’s condemnation of those asserting "doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" circumvented the due process set forth in the Book of Discipline.
• None of the five essential doctrines should be used as a test of ordination. Alternated “theories” of these doctrines are permissible.
• Liberty of thought and teaching, within the bounds of evangelical Christianity is necessary.
• Division is deplored, unity and freedom are commended.