Article After the Breakup, Heartbreak: Conservative Presbyterians without a Common Foe by D. G. Hart In the 1930s, conservatives in the PCUSA believed that their cause against liberalism in the denominations’ agencies provided a common understanding of what it meant to be a Presbyterian in America. But once these conservatives formed their own communion, they experienced a series of controversies that revealed significant differences about the nature of American Presbyterianism. These conflicts, in fact, led to further divisions among conser- vatives. This article reviews the difficulties that afflicted the Orthodox Presbyterian Church during the first decade of its existence after 1936 and suggests that having a common foe is insufficient for agreement on a common identity. n June 11, 1936, J. Gresh- Princeton Theological Seminary, O am Machen declared had his own ideas about the before the first General Assem- correct way to proceed and led a bly of the Orthodox Presbyte- smaller group of conservatives rian Church, “We became into the Bible Presbyterian members, at last, of a true Pres- Synod. Even this rupture would byterian Church.” 1 The fifty or not relieve the pressures that so ministers and elders gathered bedeviled Machen’s followers. likely heard in Machen’s pro- Throughout the 1940s, the new nouncement the relief of a man denomination lost members and who had been engaged in de- ministers to other communions, nominational disputes and thanks to internal disputes over ecclesiastical intrigue for the J. Gresham Machen, 1881-1937. Photo denominational relations with better part of two decades. by Marceau (RG 414, Presbyterian non-Presbyterians. For more “What a joyous moment it was,” Historical Society). than a decade, those who fol- he sighed, “how the long years lowed Machen could not achieve of struggle seemed to sink into Soon after Machen’s reassur- institutional stability or theologi- nothingness compared with the ing remarks, however, the new cal consensus. The conflicts that peace and joy that filled our denomination’s experience would ensued after Machen’s declaration hearts.” 2 Although the new prove how unrealistic those of independence demonstrated church was small and insignifi- hopes were. Even without the that by becoming a “true” cant by American standards, threat of liberalism, these conser- Presbyterian church, these hopes ran high among these vative Presbyterians could not conservatives were leaving only conservatives that the new refrain from controversy. In fact, one part of their heritage. They Presbyterian body would be free only a year after its founding, the may have been able to disentan- from controversy to prosecute a OPC split. Carl McIntire, a gle themselves from the theologi- truly Reformed witness. former student of Machen’s at cal breadth that afflicted the D. G. Hart is Director of Academic Programs at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Delaware, author of several books, including Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America (1994), and co-author, with John Muether, of Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism (2007) Journal of Presbyterian History | Fall/Winter 2008 • 61 mainline church, but they were unable to escape Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 by the pattern of controversies that had troubled Oxford University Press, which supplied a com- Presbyterians since 1706. plete set of notes that fit the biblical narratives into a larger dispensational pattern. Many congregations Opposed We Stand, United We Fall Apart across the Protestant spectrum, Presbyterians included, used the Scofield Reference Bible as their In its early history, the OPC experienced four pew Bible. distinct controversies that reinforced an important Dispensationalism was a decisive element of lesson of church history—namely, that having a fundamentalism. It was an especially effective common foe generates far more agreement than appeal for missions and evangelism because its figuring out the basis for fraternity and shared advocates believed that the church “age” was witness. Indeed, in the specific case of conservative coming to an end. Its proponents tended to view Presbyterians, to remove the enemy of liberalism the mainline churches as abandoning the task of was only to introduce other opponents—perhaps soul-winning. Dispensationalists also usually not as grave, but for many, every bit as important blamed liberalism for the failures of America’s for maintaining the health of American Presbyteri- churches and argued that the natural consequence anism. The first led to the exodus of Carl McIntire of such apostasy was divine judgment. Speculation and the founding of the BPS. The second, less a about Christ’s imminent return also prompted full-fledged controversy than a debate, concerned warnings about ungodliness and wickedness more the OPC’s relationship to the emerging neo- generally in the United States. evangelical movement. The third involved fairly Conservatives at Princeton Seminary, the intricate questions of Calvinist teaching regarding epicenter of opposition to liberalism in the PCUSA, the knowledge of God and resulted in Gordon were almost completely unaware of dispensational- Clark leaving the OPC to join the United Presby- ism or its appeal. For instance, Machen turned terian Church of North America. The last contro- down invitations to join the World Christian versy concerned the OPC’s understanding of its Fundamentals Association because of the group’s own relationship to American Presbyterianism and belief in a version of premillennialism that closely led to one of the most notable defections of its short resembled dispensationalism. In Christianity and history, the departure of Edwin H. Rian to rejoin Liberalism, his best-known work, written at the the PCUSA. The factors that led to the split be- height of the Presbyterian controversy of the 1920s, tween the OPC and BPS had actually been build- Machen wrote that the “recrudescence of ‘Chiliasm’ ing even while conservatives were still battling or ‘premillennialism’ in the modern Church causes liberals within the PCUSA. Differences stemmed, us serious concern; it is coupled, we think, with a ironically, from the very theological breadth in the false method of interpreting Scripture which in the mainline denomination that conservatives de- long run will be productive of harm.” 3 Because it nounced. Although the PCUSA sponsored its own was not part of academic theological discourse, seminaries and committees on theological educa- because it did not even gain a formal educational tion, at the congregational level pastors and sessions outlet until the founding of Dallas Theological were generally free to use non-Presbyterian in- Seminary in 1924, Machen and other Princetonians structional materials, and the doctrinal outlook of did not take it seriously. Dispensationalism may individual officers was hardly immune to currents have centered the curriculum at Bible institutes and in the broader Protestant world. One of the more colleges, such as Moody Bible Institute in Chicago popular teachings during the late nineteenth and or the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, but American early twentieth centuries was dispensationalism, an seminaries were indifferent. understanding of Christ’s second coming that Machen’s nonchalance would prove to be costly stressed divine judgment upon human apostasy at when controversies over the “end times” surfaced the end of each period in redemptive history, with in the OPC. The majority of the faculty at West- Christ’s second advent bringing punishment upon minster Theological Seminary, most of whom the impurity of the Church. This teaching had played significant roles in the creation of the new originated in England and spread to the United denomination, held to an amillennial view of States through a series of popular Bible and proph- Christ’s return. Unlike premillennialists, who ecy conferences. Its most important vehicle was the looked to Christ’s second coming as the beginning 62 • After the Breakup, Heartbreak: Conservative Presbyterians without a Common Foe of his thousand-year reign, and postmillennialists, by Machen, the Westminster Party consisted of the who believed the second coming would occur at majority of the seminary’s faculty, many of whom the end of a thousand-year period of prosperity for came from non-American backgrounds, such as the Church, amillennialists held that Christ’s Scottish Presbyterianism (John Murray) and second coming would mark the end of this age and Dutch-American Calvinism (Cornelius Van Til, the beginning of the final age, which was also the Ned B. Stonehouse, and R. B. Kuiper). This group consummation of the kingdom of God. This age was characterized by strict adherence to the theol- would not be a literal millennium, nor would it ogy of the Westminster Standards, a high regard bring the millennial reign of Christ. Instead, the for Presbyterian polity, and a liberal attitude toward second coming would bring the dissolution of the activities that fundamentalists deemed sinful, such present age and inaugurate the new heavens and as smoking, drinking, and viewing movies. McIn- new earth. tire and Buswell led the other group and included In the fall of 1936, the differences over escha- one of Westminster’s professors, Allan MacRae, tology came out into the open a few months after who taught Old Testament. They were over- the denomination’s first General Assembly. In a whelmingly