5 May 1924 A.D. The Rev. Dr. Daniel S. Gage engages the Auburn Affirmation of 1924
5 May 1924 A.D. The Rev. Dr. Daniel S. Gage engages the
Auburn Affirmation of 1924
By the 1940s, efforts by modernists were well
underway to effect a union between the PCUSA and the PCUS. As conservatives in
the PCUS (aka Southern Presbyterian Church) began to fight against these
efforts, with the formation of The Southern Presbyterian Journal as one major
arm of that effort, the Auburn Affirmation came to summarize all that was wrong
with the PCUSA and so criticism of the Affirmation was a key way of opposing the
merger. Here, from an early issue of The Journal, the Rev. Daniel S. Gage, a
professor at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, offered his critique of
the Auburn Affirmation which had been issued in its final form on this
day, May 5th, in 1924.
Archivist. “May 5: Rev. Gage vs. the
Auburn Affirmation.” This Day in
Presbyterian History. 5 May 2015. http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/2015/05/may-5-rev-gage-vs-the-auburn-affirmation/.
Accessed 5 May 2015.
May 5: Rev. Gage
vs. the Auburn Affirmation
[excerpted
from The Southern Presbyterian Journal, 1.5
(August 1942) 16-19.]
This
document is one of the most important ecclesiastical papers ever issued. It
deserves the most careful study, and this must of necessity be rather lengthy
if studied in an article such as this.
It
is thought by some that it merely raised some constitutional questions as to
the powers of the General Assembly. It is true that this was raised by it, but
only as the basis for a far more important “affirmation”. The General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., in reply to an overture from the
Presbytery of Baltimore, in 1910, calling attention to the existence of doubts
and denials of the faith of the Church, pronounced certain doctrines
“essential”.
The
Assembly of 1916 repeated them and in 1923 the Assembly again declared them to
be “essential” doctrines of the Word of God and of the Standards. We quote them
from the actions of that Assembly as its deliverance was followed by the Auburn
Affirmation.
1.
It is an essential doctrine of the Word and of our Standards that the Holy
Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep
them from error.
2.
It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards that the Lord
Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
3.
It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards that Christ
offered up “Himself a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice and to reconcile us
to God.”
4.
It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards concerning the
Lord Jesus Christ that on the third day he arose again from the dead, with the
same body with which He suffered, with which He also ascended to heaven and
there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession for us.
5.
It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God as the supreme standard of our
faith that our Lord Jesus showed His power and love by working mighty miracles.
This working was not contrary to nature but superior to it. An affirmation
which, on the title page, declares that it is designed to safe-guard the unity
and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., was issued on May 5, 1924. It was signed
by 1,283 ministers.
In
some preliminary notes the “Conference Committee” says that through their
correspondence they had certain knowledge that there were hundreds of ministers
agreeing with the approving of the Affirmation who had refrained from signing
it. They also in these notes declared that among the signers were conservatives
and liberals.
“Differing
as to certain theological interpretations, they are one in loyalty to our
Church, to the Kingdom of God and in faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ.” They said that these signatures constitute an appeal to the church
“for a general adoption of this same spirit of mutual confidence and unity, for
a recognition of the fact that our church is broad enough to include men
honestly different in their interpretations of our common standards and yet
loyal, servants of Jesus, and for a new consecration of the whole church to
work for the world, in obedience to our Lord.” In the Affirmation, itself, it
is, stated at the beginning that the signers “feel bound in view of certain
actions of the General Assembly of 1923 and of persistent attempts to divide
the church and abridge its freedom, to express our convictions in matters
pertaining thereto.” They asserted that they accepted the Westminster
Confession of Faith “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures”. Also, that they sincerely held and earnestly preached the
doctrines of evangelical Christianity in agreement with the historic testimony
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, “of which we are
loyal members”. “For the maintenance of the faith of our church, the
preservation of its unity and the protection of the liberties of its ministers
and people, we offer this Affirmation.”
Let
us first note the constitutional questions raised by the Affirmation. It was a
matter of wide report that there was being preached in the First Presbyterian
Church of New York, doctrines quite contrary to the Standards. The Assembly
ordered the Presbytery of New York to take steps to end this situation. The
Affirmation holds that in so doing the Assembly went beyond its powers and
handled the case unlawfully. But that by itself would not have made the
Affirmation very important. But, more important, they held that the Assembly by
declaring the above named Doctrines “essential parts” of the Word of God and of
the Standards and in enjoining Presbyteries not to ordain candidates who did
not subscribe to all of them in the form in which the Assembly had stated them,
was, in effect, creating a new Confession of Faith. That, also it had altered
the Ordination vows of a minister which had asked that he accept the Standards
as “containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures” and that this
vow did not compel a minister to put on that system the interpretation which
the Assembly had so specifically expressed. They held that if these doctrines
in this form were to be made essential and belief in all of them required, it
should have been done by action of the Presbyteries in the constitutional
manner prescribed for alteration of the Constitution and Standards of the
Church. This was, of course an important problem. It was never settled but, as
the sequence shows, went by default. These are the constitutional questions
raised by the Affirmation. The remainder and by far the most important part, is
devoted to a different problem.
It
will have been noted that the signers declared that among their reasons for
issuing the document, was “the protection of the liberties of its ministers and
people”. Also, that there had been persistent attempts made “to bridge its (the
church’s) freedom.” Of course this freedom was freedom of belief for no other
kind of freedom is assailed by a Protestant Church, whose sanctions are limited
to those of spiritual nature. And, it would be manifest without further study,
that the signers believed their freedom of belief had been assailed by the
deliverances of the Assembly in declaring certain doctrines “essential.” And,
without further study it would be clear that the signers did not believe these
doctrines to be essential. But further study will be made.
The
Document begins by saying: “By its laws and history, the Presbyterian Church in
the U.S.A. safe-guards the liberty of thought and teaching of its ministers. At
ordination they receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as
containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture. This the Church
has always esteemed a sufficient subscription. Manifestly, it does not require
their assent to the very words of the Confession or to all its teachings or to
interpretations of the Confession by individuals or church courts.” “The
Confession also expressly asserts the liberty of Christian believers and
condemns the submission of the mind or conscience to any human authority.” Here
they refer to the Conf. XX, ii.
The
Affirmation then proceeds to state parts of the history of the Church in which
this freedom was asserted. In the act of adopting the Westminster Confession in
1729, the church stated, “there are truths and forms with respect to which men
of good character and principles may differ. And in all these they think it the
duty both of private Christians and Societies, to exercise mutual forbearance
toward each other.”
In
the last century there arose in New England a theology widely different from
the theology of the Puritans and from the Westminster Standards. Mighty men on
both sides entered into the debates which then were held on the problems of the
theology then discussed. The New School Theology was never formulated in a
definite Creed but its essential difference concerned the relation of mankind
to Adam:—the imputation of his sin to man, the imputation of his guilt, being
both denied by the New School.
Different
members of this school held different views on some matters,—especially as to
why all men are sinful if no sin was inherited and if there is no “original
sin”. Still the leaders of that day on both sides evidently did not take the
words of the original Act of Adoption of 1729 as understood by the Affirmation
for they did not feel that these profound differences could be harmonized by
“mutual forebearance” and in 1837 and 1838 the Church divided into the Old and
New School Assemblies. Four ninths of the Church went into the New School. And
preceding this division, there had been several trials for heresy.
Here,
it should be said that the New School doctrines were almost if not wholly in
the Northern Synods. When the Southern Church withdrew it was from the Old
School. The official theology of the Southern has been and is, Old School. But
the affirmation goes on to say that after 33 years of separation, the
theological debates having died down, these two Assemblies, differing so
profoundly in interpretation of the Scriptures and the Standards, re-union,—on
the basis of the Standards, each recognizing the other as a sound and orthodox
body. No attempt was made to harmonize their different theologies. Both could
be freely preached in the re-united body. New theories are rarely thought to
their ultimate conclusion when first formulated. As far as I am aware, none of
the New School at first denied the divinity of Jesus, the Vicarious Atonement,
or the accuracy of the Bible. But, it should have been plain from the start,
that the less man is a sinner, the less he needs a Saviour. And it should have
been plain that if New School doctrines as to the original innocence of
man,—the absence of original sin, that there was no imputation to man of either
the sin or the guilt of Adam, were correct, then man could save himself, and
the inevitable conclusion would be the loss of belief in the divinity of
Christ, the Vicarious Atonement, and Humanism, in general.
And
the Affirmationists were undoubtedly right in asserting that the history of the
Church U.S.A. does show that what is said in one of the introductory paragraphs
is correct,—that they were appealing to the Church “for a recognition of the
fact that our Church is broad enough to include men honestly differing in their
interpretation of our common standards, and yet loyal servants of Jesus
Christ.” For since that union of 1870, there has been two wholly different
theologies preached in the Church U. S. A., so different that it is impossible
to reconcile them, and those differences do not concern minor matters, but are
at the very foundation of the whole system of doctrine. That the Church, U.S.A.
has been an “inclusive” church since then cannot be doubted.
The
Affirmation then goes on to cite in support of their contention as to the fact
that the whole history of the church is one of recognition of differing
interpretations, the fact that in 1906, the church united with the Cumberland
Presbyterian Church. “The union was opposed on the ground that the two churches
were not one in doctrine, yet it was consummated. Thus did our church once more
exemplify its historical policy of accepting theological differences within its
bounds and subordinating them to recognized loyalty to Jesus Christ and united
work for the kingdom of God.”
Next,
the Affirmation definitely denies that any Council has power to settle any
controversies of religion. It quotes the words of the Confession that “the
Supreme Guide …. can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scripture”. “Accordingly our Church has held that the supreme guide in the
interpretation of the Scriptures is … the Spirit of God speaking to the Christian
believer.” The omitted words refer to the contrary doctrine of the Roman
Catholics, and do not in any way alter the meaning of the Affirmation as the
Supreme Guide and Judge.
But
the Affirmation next challenges the declaration of the Assembly in its first
“essential doctrine” that the writers of the Scriptures were kept free from
error. It asserts that the Confession does not make this statement,—that it is
not to be found in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, nor in any of the great
Reformation Confessions, and hold that the General Assembly of 1923 in so
asserting, “spoke without warrant of the Scriptures or the Confession of Faith.
We hold rather to the words of the Confession of Faith, that the Scriptures
‘are given by inspiration of God to be the whole rule of faith and life”.
Next,
the Affirmation refers to the expression of the General Assembly of 1923, that
five doctrinal statements were “essential doctrines of the Word of God and our
Standards.” It declares that on the constitutional grounds they have before
described, “we are opposed to any and all attempts to elevate these five
doctrinal statements or any of them, to the position of tests for ordination or
good standing in our church”. The plain meaning of this is that a minister may
deny any or all of them and still be in good standing in the church. He may
deny the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Vicarious Atonement, the
Bodily Resurrection and the working of Miracles and be in good standing as to
his faith and preaching.
Next,
the Affirmation adds:—“Furthermore, this opinion of the General Assembly tends
to commit our church to certain theories concerning the inspiration of the
Bible, and the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection and the Continuing
Life and Supernatural Power of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It will have been noted
that in making the declaration that these doctrines were essential, the
Assembly used the verbatim words of the Standards except as to the Miracles.
But the Affirmation holds that these words merely express certain theories as
to these five doctrines. In their place, the signers next say—and this is
important, “We all hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines”,
(here we call careful attention to the following quotation as it contains the heart
of the Affirmation)—”we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the
Bible were inspired of God: that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh;
that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself and through Him we
have our redemption; that having died for our sins He rose from the dead and is
our ever-living Saviour; that in His earthly ministry He wrought many mighty
works and by His vicarious death and unfailing presence He is able to save to
the uttermost.” The above is printed with emphasis, heavy type, in the
Affirmation. It would sound well if it were not for what follows. “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 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”.
Next
is added: “We do not desire liberty to go beyond the teachings of evangelical
Christianity. But we maintain that it is our constitutional right and Christian
duty within these limits to exercise liberty of thought and teaching that we
may more effectively preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the
world.” The Affirmation closes with a paragraph which deplores the evidence of
division in the church, and appeals to all to preserve the unity and freedom of
the Church.
It
will be noted that in the above statement of the facts and doctrines which all
hold, it is admitted that the Biblical writers were inspired but they decline
to believe that they were kept by the Spirit free from error. They believe God
was in Christ, but not by the Virgin Birth. Nor was Jesus Christ necessarily
then truly God and Man with two distinct natures and one person. That Jesus did
rise from the dead but they decline to hold that it must have been by the resurrection
of the body with which he was buried. That He did many mighty works but they
decline to hold that they must have been genuine miracles. That His death was
vicarious and yet the Atonement was not necessarily of such nature. In other
words, all these views in the Confession reasserted by the Assembly are but
theories for explanation of the above facts. Other theories are possible
according to the Affirmation. One who denies all the above theories as
expressed in the Confession could hold other theories and still be in good and
regular standing and worthy of all confidence and fellowship.
How
different might be the theologies preached in church in which all these
theories might be believed by some and denied by others would be hard to say.
Is it unfair to say that almost any doctrine short of denial of Jesus as Lord
and Saviour could be preached? Almost any doctrine as to the reliability of
Scripture, as to the person and nature of Christ,—as to the nature of His
atonement,—as to His resurrection,—as to his life on earth as far as miracles
are concerned. Could not ALL miracles be denied? Could it not be held that
Jesus was but a man in whom God manifested Himself? Could not one hold other
theories as to the appearance of Christ in the upper room than that He actually
appeared in the Body? And so with other appearances? Of course he could,—if the
statements of the Assembly which quotes the words of the Confession are but
theories and other theories are possible.
The
signers of the Affirmation declared that they had the constitutional right to
preach other theories. And this was granted by the fact that the Committee of
the Assembly of 1924 to which the Affirmation was referred recommended that no
action be taken. Therefore, men of liberal views, of conservative
views,—holding the Old School doctrines as to the sinfulness of man and those
of the New School denying it, and therefore not so needing a Saviour as if he
were “dead in trespasses and sin”,—those of Arminian theology as found in the
Cumberland Church, and those of strict Calvinism; and other views which may be
held are all in the one Church. The constitutional power of the Assembly to
declare certain “theories” as the Affirmationists called them, of the Facts of
Christianity to be essential, was never brought to the test. It was never sent
to the Presbyteries. The Church decided to preserve outward ecclesiastical
unity by permitting any private interpretation to be put on all the facts of
Christianity. In their statement as to the Supreme Guide of doctrine these
words are used, “accordingly our church has held that the supreme guide in the
interpretations of the Scriptures is not, as with Roman Catholics,
ecclesiastical authority, but the Spirit of God speaking to the Christian
believer”. Any believer therefore has the right to hold his interpretations of
all the facts of the Christian life. Certainly, this is true. But whether any
believer has the right to preach his private interpretations and remain in a
particular church, is not necessarily the case. Two courses are manifestly open
to all organized churches. They may decide to permit any and all
interpretations and thus preserve outward unity by permitting inward diversity.
The
Affirmationists declared that they did not desire to go beyond the bounds of
evangelical Christianity. But any one could freely determine for himself what
these bounds were, decide for himself what evangelical Christianity is, and
they claimed and received this right. On the other hand, any Church can, if it
choose, decide that it wishes real unity of belief, and a consistent unified
message in its bounds,—it may if it choose, decide what is the “Gospel” and
what as Paul says, are “not even other gospels for they are no Gospel at all”.
Outward unity at the price of inward diversity,—or real unity both outward and
inward,—a declaration as to what is the true “Gospel” and the permission of any
doctrine as to the Gospel,—these are apparently the lines which Churches must
choose. Our Church so far has chosen to try to preserve both inward and outward
unity. We must pay the price if we give up our real inward unity.
This
study is written to call the attention of our Southern Church to the situation
should there come organic union between the two Assemblies. We would enter a
body far larger than ours in which all the above doctrines could be preached,
and, of course, then, they could be preached in any part of our now Southern
Church. That this amounts to removing almost all doctrinal standards needs for
proof only that the Affirmation be studied. For note the paragraph introductory
of the Affirmation to which reference was made near the beginning of this
article,—that the Affirmation is an appeal for the recognition of the fact that
our church is broad enough to include men differing in their interpretation of
our common Standards.” It is the Interpretation
which a man puts on words,—not the words, themselves, which determines his
beliefs. Differing interpretations may mean differing and even mutually
exclusive theologies. Organic union would be but outward, while there would not
and could not be any real inner unity.
Comments
Post a Comment