We can only speculate as to how he [Machen] might view the de facto revisions of the PCA’s confession and catechisms due to the allowances of “good faith subscription.” One thing is for sure—despite the challenges of the day, PCA confessionalists stand on much firmer ground and have far better prospects than did Machen in the first three and half decades of the 20th century.

J. Gresham Machen was doomed from the start in the Northern church. A virus was inserted into the PCUSA’S denominational source code going back to the mid-late 19th century at least. Add to the doctrinal defects the denomination’s stranglehold on the property of local congregations and you have an inevitable outcome…unless the bad guys leave and take the hit. And how often does this happen? The inertia and self-interest of large organizations usually win, especially when the organization is lavishly funded.
The Charles Augustus Briggs case was the little yellow bird in the mainline presbyterian coal mine. Though Briggs, a minister, professor, and opponent of the verbal inspiration of scripture, was defrocked in 1893, his very presence was a warning. But Briggs* was not just a doctrinal heretic—”Inerrancy is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children.”—he was also an opponent of that bulwark against error, confessionalism.

Briggs sounded very up-to-date when he “claimed that the contemporary supporters of the Confession had actually distorted the spirit of its teaching. ‘Modern Presbyterianism,’ he charged, ‘had departed from the Westminster Standards’ and a ‘false orthodoxy had obtruded itself’ in its place. That false teaching—what he labeled ‘orthodoxism’—was coming from Princeton Seminary, principally in the defense of biblical authority championed by A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield.”
Briggs was ahead of the game when it comes to a sort of beautiful orthodoxy:
Orthodoxism assumes to know the truth and is unwilling to learn; it is haughty and arrogant, assuming the divine prerogatives of infallibility and inerrancy; it hates the truth that is unfamiliar to it, and prosecutes it to the uttermost. But (ed. note: beautiful?) orthodoxy loves the truth. It is ever anxious to learn, for it knows how greatly the truth of God transcends human knowledge…. It is meek, lowly, and reverent. It is full of charity and love. It does not recognize an infallible pope; it does not bow to an infallible theologian.
The above was quoted by Hart and Muether. Let us see more of what they wrote about this particular turning point in Presbyterian history. Ask yourself, O PCA presbyter, if anything sounds familiar:
Although critical of the alleged innovations from Princeton Seminary, Union Seminary’s Old School rival, Briggs did not advocate merely removing a supposed Princetonian gloss from the Westminster Confession. Presbyterians, he argued, must also acknowledge the inadequacies and errors of the Confession. Since progress was of the essence of genuine Presbyterianism, the Confession itself encouraged its adjustment “to the higher knowledge of our times and the still higher knowledge that the coming period of progress in theology will give us.” Failure to take this step would be to retreat to the errors of Rome and to abandon the very principles of the Reformation.
Briggs was tapping into a growing consensus in the church, which had begun to form no later than the reunion of 1869, that the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession needed to be softened. In the words of Benjamin J. Lake, “Some of the time-honored rigidity in the Westminster Confession seemed obsolete to many Presbyterians.” Typically, Presbyterian rigidity was spelled p-r-e-d-e-s-t-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.
At the same time, former Old Schoolers feared the rise of “broad churchism” and anticonfessionalism. But if Briggs’s proposals outraged conservatives, the spirit and the terms of the 1869 reunion discouraged efforts to discipline him. (bolding mine)
That reunion was of the previously divided stick-in-the-mud Old Schoolers and go-go, revivalist New Schoolers. The question must be asked: Are the divides in the PCA of today just a repeat (or rhyming soundalike) of the Old School-New School contradictions?
Turning back to Machen, let us notice that “the harder Calvinistic edges of the Confession (which) needed to be softened” were in fact softened to encourage and pave the way for the PCUSA’s absorption of much of the Cumberland Presbyterian church, a sort of revivalist 4-point Calvinist mutant body. In 1903, revisions of a few sections, two added chapters, and a qualifying “declaratory statement” sucked the Calvinistic life out of the Westminster Confession—at least the Northern church’s version. Thus by 1920s, Machen and his allies were working with a confession already diluted and de-fanged. The writing was on the wall.

The PCA and OPC are working with a restored WCF, thanks largely to Machen, who “was not as favorable (as Warfield), describing the 1903 revisions as ‘compromising amendments,’ ‘highly objectionable,’ a ‘calamity,’ and ‘a very serious lowering of the flag’ (Presbyterian Guardian, Nov. 28, 1936, pp. 69-70).”
Machen died soon after penning these words, of course. We can only speculate as to how he might view the de facto revisions of the PCA’s confession and catechisms due to the allowances of “good faith subscription.” One thing is for sure—despite the challenges of the day, PCA confessionalists stand on much firmer ground and have far better prospects than did Machen in the first three and half decades of the 20th century. Let us learn…and live.
Brad Isbell is a ruling elder at Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oak Ridge, Tenn. This article is used with permission.
*Briggs became an Episcopalian
Related Posts:

In light of the main message of Job and in view of a comprehensive biblical model of counseling, we can conclude that: Elihu was wrong about God, wrong about Job, and wrong to focus exclusively on confronting Job while never comforting Job. Elihu’s God is Sovereign, but not a Shepherd. Elihu relates to Job only as a sinner, not a sufferer.

I’ve spent the past several months reading the Bible cover-to-cover seeking to discern the Bible’s teaching on traumatic-suffering and embodied-souls. So far I’ve studied Genesis 1 to Psalms 150. I have over 400 pages of single-spaced typed notes.
I have eighty-five pages of notes on the Book of Job alone. As part of my study of Job, I’ve collated over four dozen examples of poor counseling from Job’s miserable counselors. I hope to summarize that material into a couple of blog posts at some point in the future.
Like others, I’ve wondered where Elihu (Job 32-37) fits into the picture. Is he a worthy model of a wise counselor? Or, is he a prime example of how not to counsel? Or, perhaps he is a mixture of both good/wise and bad/foolish counsel?
In Eric Ortlund’s book on Job, Piercing Leviathan, He notes that some commentators have assessed Elihu positively, while others have evaluated Elihu’s counsel negatively. Ortlund then lists about a dozen reasons why he sees Elihu’s counsel as unwise and unhelpful.
Christopher Ash, in his book, Job: The Wisdom of the Cross, notes that “almost every commentary is skeptical about Elihu, critical of his views, his tone, and his character. Such a widespread agreement among critics should not be lightly jettisoned…” (327). Yet Ash disagrees with the majority of commentators. He then lists about half-a-dozen reasons why he sees Elihu’s counsel as wise.
While I was preparing to write and post this blog, I saw a blog post by James Fields at the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors: Wise Counsel from Job’s Counselor, Elihu. As the title suggests, Fields provides a positive assessment of Elihu’s counseling, listing seven areas of fruitful counsel.
Interestingly, while God confronts Job’s three miserable counselors, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and while God affirms Job (Job 42-7-11), God ignores Elihu. God never mentions Elihu—for good or bad, as wise or foolish, as a positive or negative model of biblical soul care.
So what do we make of Elihu from a biblical counseling perspective? As we seek to answer that question, we want to do so through two important grids, perspectives, or lenses:

Grid #1: What is the main message of Job?
Grid #2: What is a comprehensive model of biblical counseling?

Grid #1: The Main Message of Job—How Do We See God in the Midst of Our Suffering?
I could write a book on Job, traumatic suffering, and our view of God. But this is a blog post, so I’ll seek to be succinct. Job is not just about Job. It is not just about suffering. It is not even just about God.
Job is about how we see God in the midst of our suffering. Job is about the lens through which we view God as we face suffering. Job is about facing suffering face-to-face with God our Sovereign Shepherd.
Job’s three unwise counselors spoke wrongly about God.

They saw God as a Great Sovereign, but not as a Good Shepherd.
They saw God as all-powerful, but not as all-loving.
They saw God as just, but not as loving, gracious, compassionate, merciful, kind, giving, forgiving, and redeeming.
They saw God as a harsh Judge, a cruel Tyrant, not as a forgiving and giving Father.
They saw God as a works-oriented God, not as a grace-centered God.
They mistook God’s shepherding for condemnation and judgment.
They saw God as a petty, “tit-for-tat,” vindictive, childish God who only gives good to us when we are good; and always gives bad to us when we are bad. They saw God as being an immature child who says, “You hit me first; now I’ll get back at you!” “You started this; I’ll finish it!” “I do get mad, and I get even!”
Because they misunderstood God, they misunderstood suffering. They said suffering is always caused by sinning. According to them, every sufferer is always suffering because of their direct personal sin.

In Job 38-42, God reveals Himself to Job in all His infinite fullness (view this post to see over forty biblical couplets of God’s Holy-Love). The God of Job, the God of the universe, is:

Our God of Holy-Love.
Our Shepherd-King.
Our Sovereign Shepherd.
Our Good Shepherd and Gracious Sovereign.
Our Affectionate Sovereign.
Our God of Holiness and Grace.
Our God of Compassion and Justice.
Our Infinite, Intimate God.

So our ultimate assessment of Elihu’s counsel must be based upon how well or how poorly Elihu’s view of God aligns with how God reveals Himself in the Book of Job.
Grid #2: A Comprehensive Model of Biblical Counseling—Sustaining, Healing, Reconciling, and Guiding
In Gospel-Centered Counseling and in Gospel Conversations, I develop in detail a biblical and church history model of biblical counseling. Since this is a blog post, I can only provide the most basic outline of that approach here.
Read More
Related Posts:

A Presbyterian missionary to Africa told me several years ago that Africa is large with peoples of many cultures and languages distributed over its varied topography that provides a spectrum of climates from Cape Town to Casablanca to Cairo. Africa is a mission field that is complex with unique challenges. The nearly 800 pages of the book are indicative of the size of the continent and two-hundred years of Presbyterian missions history. The twenty-six authors unite to provide through their varied experiences and scholarship a panorama of Presbyterian history in Africa.

BOOK NOTICE–On January 1, 1824 the Presbytery of Kaffraria was organized the first presbytery in Africa. In celebration of this bicentennial A Survey of Presbyterian Mission History in Africa: Historic Beginnings (c.1790s to c.1930s) is the first of a two-volume set by Barnabas Academic Publishers. Volume two is scheduled for publication in 2024. The editor, J. C. Whytock, has taught church and missions history at colleges and seminaries across Africa more than twenty years and his work includes An Educated Clergy, 2007, as well as contributions to The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 2012, and A Companion to The Reformation in Scotland, 2021. The book cover shows a reproduction of a painting by Thomas Baines of the intimidatingly large tree Baobab; it was painted while the artist travelled with Dr. David Livingstone on his Zambesi Expedition in 1858.
Following a forward by Ronald Munyithya, retired church pastor and lecturer in Biblical Studies at Mukhanyo Theological College, the text is divided into four parts including 13, 9, 3, and 7 chapters respectively. The first part considers the historic beginnings and developments in western and southern Africa; the second part addresses the same subjects for western and central Africa; then the third part looks into the Nile corridor in the northeast part of the continent; and the fourth part ponders assorted topical studies. Some of the chapter titles from the four parts are—African Presbyterian Sung Praise–Principles, Early Psalters and Hymnals; Presbyterian Developments in Kenya; History of Presbyterians in Rwanda; Presbyterian Ethiopianism in South Africa and Malawi; Old Princeton Seminary & the Missionary Imperative, which includes an article about Princeton alumni that served in Africa; Jewish and Muslim Missions in Northern Africa; The History of Early Presbyterianism in Sudan; legacies of African American Missionaries of the American Presbyterian Congo Mission; Beginnings of Presbyterian Work in German Kamerun, c.1879–c.1940; and Revival and Exile: The Madeirans, A Story of Influence on the Fringe.
Read More
Related Posts: