Loy’s letter of April 2, 1935 to his cousin expressed his support for him in his testing times and his own personal outrage at the way the modernists had made their case against him. He described the action of the General Assembly as “an unqualified outrage—unconstitutional, ultra vires, un-Presbyterian, and altogether prompted by a spirit of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.” Loy believed the outcome of the case was assured from the beginning and “the cards were stacked against you.” But he also related the comments of Moderator of New York Presbytery Russell that the actions against Machen had backfired to a degree because the way he had been treated did not look good to the general public. Loy added that lots “of men who are not on your side will see that the boot has been shifted to the other foot, and that the very ones who have been raising the cry of intolerance have been guilty of that unpardonable sin themselves” to which he added that he could not “help feeling that this adverse decision is really in your favor and that it will lead to vindication in the end.”

Mary and John Jones Gresham had two children that survived to marry and have families, Mary Jones and Thomas Baxter. Mary Jones, who was also called Minnie, would live in Baltimore with her husband Arthur Webster Machen and they would enjoy the births of three sons, one of which was born in 1881 and named John Gresham Machen. At the time of his birth, Thomas and his wife Tallulah had been raising their son LeRoy in Madison, Georgia, since his birth September 21, 1871. When Thomas and Lula Gresham moved their family to Baltimore their residence was close to that of the Machens. Gresham and Loy, which was the name Machen most often used for his cousin, became more and more like brothers than just first cousins because of their many opportunities to socialize, share common interests, and experiences. The ten-year age difference between the boys put Loy in the position of being like an older brother to J. Gresham Machen.
The purpose of this article is to consider the relationship of J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham following their years growing up together in Baltimore. This will be accomplished using a selection of letters written between April 1921 and April 1935. The letters will show that the two cousins continued to be both friends and confidants regarding issues of common interest including the situation with the Presbyterians as it developed in the 1920s in both the PCUSA and the PCUS.
LeRoy Gresham
LeRoy Gresham’s education included study in Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before he travelled the few miles down the road to Princeton University to earn both a B.A. and a M.A. Returning to Baltimore, Loy studied for one year at Johns Hopkins University and then went to the University of Maryland for his legal studies earning the LL.D. Initially, he followed in his father’s footsteps by practicing law in Baltimore beginning in 1896 but then after six years of work he realized that God was calling him to the pastoral ministry. Loy was just over thirty years of age when he began seminary studies. Unlike Machen’s choice for seminary, Loy selected Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, where he earned the B.D. {4} in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the PCUS, and then he was ordained by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was a brief one of three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call would be his last because he would serve the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and remain there until his retirement in 1946. LeRoy was honored with the DD by both King College in Bristol and Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia. Loy had married Jessie Rhett in 1903, and they had two sons, Francis, who was the youngest, and Thomas Baxter.
Machen Recommends LeRoy for a New Call and Preaches at Hollins College[2]
At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry in Salem, Machen mentioned Loy in a letter to Rev. Stuart “Bill” Hutchison as a possible candidate for his soon to be vacant pulpit with the hopes that he would recommend Loy to the pulpit committee. The opportunity that Machen believed could be a suitable change for Loy was just across the state in the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk. Bill Hutchison had been the minister of the PCUS church for about ten years, and his new call was to the East Liberty Church, PCUSA in Pittsburgh. If Loy was to move to Norfolk, the change would take him from a congregation of over three-hundred members to one of nearly a thousand. Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Cousin Loy, so he presented his case to Bill regarding his qualifications.
I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see.
Machen went on to comment to Bill that the Salem congregation believed Loy was content with his call and would not leave the church for any reason. He added that Loy believed “his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.” Despite the confidence of the congregation regarding Loy’s happiness as their pastor, Machen thought there was a possibility his cousin would leave Salem for another call when he believed God was calling him to do so. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes.” The letter shows Machen’s exuberance as he spoke up for his cousin because he wanted the best for him, and it looked like First Presbyterian Church in Norfolk was a call suited for his gifts.
As the letter draws to its close, Machen mentioned that it was his hope to have a week of hiking in the Natural Bridge area of Virginia with Loy before he preached the baccalaureate sermon at Hollins College for Women in Roanoke the evening of Sunday, June 5. Though the {5} sermon is untitled, Machen’s text was 2 Corinthians 4:18, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” According to the summary by the writer for Hollins Magazine, Machen’s emphasis was on the need for a deep faith that provides a solid and long-lasting foundation for Christian living. Machen also referred to the familiar text from Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” He encouraged the new graduates to pursue the Kingdom first and establish a sure foundation for practical Christianity. Hollins Magazine commented further.
Mr. Machen’s words served as a reminder to us that although we may aspire to be of much practical service to the world, our deeds will be futile unless they have beneath them a deep spiritual raison d’ếtre. We need first of all to be sincere believers in Christianity, and “it will follow as the night follows day” that our words and actions will have an unfailing power for good in the world.[3]
The baccalaureate sermon presented the simple message that Machen so often emphasized—the practical aspects of Christianity must be built upon a solid foundation of doctrine, which in this case he corresponded with seeking first the Kingdom of God. If the practical is sought without first having a solid foundation, then only a superficial and self-serving obedience will follow.
Christianity and Liberalism, New Testament Greek for Beginners, and the PCUS[4]
The year 1923 was a particularly important one for Machen’s academic career because two of what would become best-selling books, Christianity and Liberalism, and shortly thereafter, New Testament Greek for Beginners were published.[5] In a letter of May 2, 1923, Loy thanked Gresham for the recently received copy of his just released Greek grammar about which he observed, “it looks like an excellent little book” and “the preface is most interesting,” but he did not think he could assess it thoroughly until he had the opportunity to use it, hopefully, with his youngest son, Francis. Little did Loy or Machen know that the Greek textbook would be long appreciated and esteemed after their time. It remained in print with Macmillan for years, after which it was published by other companies with an updated edition in 2003.
Loy mentioned that he had “one or two interesting side-lights” on Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. The local newspaper, Roanoke World-News, had published in its literary column a review of the book written by a member of Loy’s congregation whom he identified as Dr. Painter. Loy said the man was a former Lutheran minister, who was a widely read man, had a keen sense of humor, and was “altogether a most agreeable man personally.” But Loy speculated that the reason Dr. Painter was no longer a minister was because he fell out with the Lutherans, which Loy believed was due to his being “the only man in the ministry that I ever heard of that was president of a cigarette-machine company; and I am inclined to think that his business had something to do with his not getting along with the Lutherans.”
Dr. Painter was retired Professor of Modern Languages and Literature F. V. N. Painter of Roanoke College.[6] He was an accomplished scholar having written a number of books including A History of English Literature, Introduction to English {6} Literature, Introduction to American Literature, and several others. He was ordained into the Lutheran ministry and began teaching in 1878. In order to have more time for writing, and apparently as Loy mentioned, to try his hand at manufacturing by becoming president of the Bonsack Company, he retired from the college in 1906. The Bonsack Company had been founded by James Bonsack to manufacture the cigarette-rolling machine he had patented.[7]
Painter’s two-book review is titled, “Orthodoxy and Modernism,” with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism representing orthodoxy and Percy Stickney Grant’s The Religion of Main Street representing the modernist perspective.[8] The review provides a brief account of Machen’s chief points as contrasted with those of Grant’s book. Machen is described as one of the “stand-patters,” while Grant is presented as a member of the “radicals.” Machen’s teaching regarding the plenary inspiration of Scripture, doctrines such as original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement were not in accord with the modern, progressive, and liberal needs of the era. Grant’s progressive and liberal views are said to fit the needs of the scientific age and he believed traditional, creedal doctrine to be “archaic if not false.” Grant commented further that “‘in Adam’s fall we sinned all’ was the old theology” and its associated emphasis on sin “crushed humanity.” Painter ended his nine-hundred-word review saying, “After carefully reading these two theological polemics, this reviewer turned with relief and refreshment to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul touched the stars, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
As a promoter of Machen’s work, Loy was crafty in his method. While a woman Bible teacher from Union Seminary Training School in Richmond was participating in the Presbyterial Auxiliary meeting, she visited the Greshams and found a copy of Christianity and Liberalism strategically placed in the house for her sure sighting. She picked up what Loy described as “bait” and commented that she was delighted with the book. Loy responded by giving her one of his extra copies, thanked her for her interest, and encouraged her to continue reading his cousin’s work.
Machen responded to Loy’s letter within a few days and after informing him that he would be too busy to visit Salem until the next year, he encouraged Loy regarding his selection to attend the PCUS General Assembly for his presbytery, but he also expressed concern about what he saw as troubling signs in the PCUS. Machen told his cousin that the “Southern Church puzzles and disturbs me.” In particular, he had noticed recently that Dr. Leighton Stewart, whom he described as “a liberal propagandist in China,” had recently been examined extensively and admitted into the Presbytery of East Hanover in Richmond. He also found unsettling the collective review of books in the spring issue of The Union Seminary Review that included Harry Emerson Fosdick’s, Christianity and Progress, 1922, and Charles A. Ellwood’s, The Reconstruction of Religion: A Sociological View, 1922.[9] The reviewer, John Calvin Siler, a Union alumnus and a pastor in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia, concluded the review saying, “We must read these books not as theological treatises, but as books on practical religion. These books have no special message on doctrine, but they have a burning message on practice.” The separation of doctrine from practice was one of Machen’s chief concerns with the PCUSA, and seeing the same thinking in the denomination of his youth bothered him greatly. He added, “It looks to me sometimes as though the Southern Church were going to give Christianity up without even being conscious that anything particularly worth while is being lost.” However, he believed there were some “splendid men” who were concerned about the issues taking place in the PCUS such as R.C. Reed of Columbia Seminary.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Monday, September 26, 2022
So, how are we to defend ourselves from the strategy of Satan? What, if anything can we do? Well, I hope you noticed a big difference between the way that Eve responded to Satan and the way that Jesus responded to Satan. Eve failed to resist the Devil’s temptation, while Jesus obviously succeeded. Jesus succeeded because he understood that the best defense one can have for any lie is to simply know the truth. The best defense is simply to have an answer at hand to respond to each lie of Satan.

I’ve written previously about the reasonable existence and reality of the personal being that we, as Christians, call “Satan”. You can examine the philosophical and Biblical evidence for his existence in prior articles. But once we are confident that Satan exists, it would be wise to try to understand how he operates, since evil often targets humans. In order to understand how Satan operates as he tries to impact our lives, let’s begin by summarizing his nature, for it is out of his nature that he acts to corrupt and ruin the lives of God’s children. A good place to start, as we examine what the Bible says about Satan, is simply with his name. Two words are commonly used to describe this being. The first name given to this being is “Satan”:
“Satan” = “Satanas” (GREEK) = “Adversary”
That’s an interesting name to give this fallen angel. He is God’s adversary, his opponent. This simple title tells us much about the nature of Satan. As an adversary to God, Satan opposes God; he is God’s opposite, and we already know who and what God is. God is truth:
1 John 1:5-7This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
God is light and truth, Satan is darkness and deception.  The ‘other’ name typically given to Satan makes this clear:
“Devil” = “Diabolos” (GREEK) = “Slanderer” or “False Accuser”
Satan’s names say it all. From these two words, we already understand the nature of the Devil. He is God’s adversary because he is the opposite of God. Satan is all about darkness, deception and slander:
John 8:43-45You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
According to this passage, the very nature of Satan is that of deceit. But look again at John 8:43-45. Did you notice that Satan is not only described as a liar, but also as a murderer? According to this passage, Satan is a murderer because he is a liar. He murders by lying. In essence, this means that it is our acceptance of Satan’s lies that causes us to die:
Accepting a Lie = Death
These two things are related. Interestingly, we also know from scripture that something else leads to death:
Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death
According to Paul (the author of Romans) it is sin that leads to death, and one way to describe sin is simply to understand it as a lie – told by Satan – that causes us to act against the nature and desires of God.
1 John 1:8-9If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
We sin when we accept a lie rather than the truth that God has given us in His Word. This is important reality for us to understand, because it illuminates the strategy that Satan employs when trying to cause us to sin. Let’s illustrate the relationship between accepting a lie and committing a sin with a few examples:
What is Adultery? It begins by believing the lie that sleeping with someone other than your wife is acceptable if it satisfies a need in your life or can be done without your spouse knowing. This sin is committed when we reject the truth that God has already given us about the nature of adultery.
What is Stealing? It begins by believing the lie that it is acceptable to take something that is not yours if your situation is bad enough or if the person who owns the property does not ‘deserve’ or ‘need’ it. This sin is committed when we reject the truth that God has already given us about the nature of theft.
What is Murder? It begins by believing the lie that it is acceptable to take the life of another if they have angered you enough or if you personally think they deserve it. This sin is committed when we reject the truth that God has already given us about the nature of murder.
Satan’s power is the power of deception. This is his tool. It is Satan’s goal to convince us that God’s Word is not as important as our fallen human nature and desire. As I’ve written elsewhere, all sin is motivated by one of three desires that Satan can pervert in an attempt to cause us to sin: financial gain, sexual lust, and the pursuit of power. Satan has attacked these three areas of desire from the very beginning.
Read More
Related Posts:

Tony tells me, “I’ve given up. I can’t keep fighting.” He’s discouraged and worn out from his decade-long porn addiction.
A few days later, Lisa walks into my office. “I’m addicted to pornography, and I’ve lost all hope. God doesn’t seem to care.” She doesn’t know what to do anymore.
Tony and Lisa are weary soldiers who have spent years in a hard-fought battle against porn addiction. They’re infected with a defeatist attitude that results in a passive approach to their sin. “What’s the use?” they think. “I’ll just give in again. I won’t ever defeat this problem.” They assume that they’ll always struggle. Change is no longer possible. Their lack of success proves (in their minds) that they’re in a losing battle.
What do believers do if they’ve given up? How do they overcome the defeatist attitude that’s so characteristic of this problem?
Be Aggressive About Cutting Off Access Points
Hope often begins when the addict finds success in slowing down the addiction.
The first step is to be brutal about cutting off access points. Jesus tells us not to be passive about sexual sin. Our Lord uses graphic language to communicate the seriousness of getting rid of sexual sin: “If your right eyes causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away…If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away” (Matt. 5:29-30).
Strugglers do a poor job getting rid of access points. They cut out most access points, but they leave one or two lingering. Why is that? They’ve grown far too cozy with their sin and let it stick around. What happens in a weak moment when Tony is ruled by his lustful desires? Because he’s given up, he’ll give in to his desires, and he’ll act out yet again.
Jesus says to Tony, “Be radical. By my power and my strength, get rid of every access point. Don’t leave any behind.”
A defeatist attitude grows comfortable with sin. A gospel mindset is aggressive about cutting sin out.
Deal With the Shame
Shame causes a struggler to hide. Shame whispers in an addict’s ear: Run. Don’t let people see you. You’re worthless. Who would want someone like you? Sexual sin prospers in the darkness, not in the light. Mold grows in darkness, but it dies under the bright, hot sunlight. So also, sexual sin prospers and grows as a believer isolates himself and turns away (Prov. 18:1) from the provision of God’s people (Eph. 4:15-16) and God’s Word (Isa. 55:10-11).
If you struggle with porn, do you feel dirty and unclean? Have you been exposed? Do you act like an outcast? Do you feel rejected? Do you wallow in a sense of failure?
Hope comes when you turn away from the whispers of shame and run headlong to Christ. Jesus covers the naked and exposed (Zech. 3:3-5). He makes the unworthy and unclean clean (Matt. 8:1-3). He welcomes the outcast with open arms (John 4). He gives you a righteousness that’s not your own (2 Cor. 5:21), so you don’t have to live under your own unreasonable standards.
A defeatist attitude wallows in shame. A gospel mindset begs Christ for mercy.