Many thanks are owed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Committee of the Historian for uploading the entirety of the archives of The Presbyterian Guardian.
The Presbyterian Guardian was an important voice in the early years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. From the start, it was characterized by its vigorous opposition to modernism and its proclamation and defense of Reformed orthodoxy. This commitment characterized all 611 issues of the journal, and it found expression in stimulating articles such as John Murray's series, "The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes." Established on the eve of the founding of the denomination, the Guardian reported actively on the developments in the OPC, although it remained an independent magazine.
I've browsed through a few of the early issues of the Guardian and was particularly struck by some of the cartoons contained therein, drawn by Phil Saint. Mind you, the first issues of the Guardian predate even the OPC itself. It was started while Machen, et al. were still in the mainline Presbyterian Church (the first issue of the Guardian came out in 1935, and the OPC, originally called the PCA (how's that for confusing!), was not founded until 1936). I've posted a few of these cartoons at the end of this article.
I believe there is a direct correlation between The Presbyterian Guardian, in general, and these cartoons, specifically, and the blogs of today that seek to call out the errors of those in our denominations who promote a false Gospel such as the Federal Vision or who seek to undermine the authority of the Church, such as those involved in the Erskine lawsuit. There are those in the PCA and ARP that would rather see such blogs shut down, and to that end, some have even gone as far as to make accusations against the ministers who own them claiming that they have violated the 9th commandment by slandering the good name of these false teachers. Never mind that the catechism teaches us that "wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause" is forbidden in the ninth commandment or that "concealing the truth," and "undue silence in a just cause" is likewise sinful. I have no doubt that these men, had they lived 75 years ago would have likewise decried Machen, Van Til, Murray, and most certainly, Phil Saint for violating the 9th commandment.
I encourage you men who strive against false teaching: You are in good company!
One correction, Seth. No charges have been filed against TE White or myself. We have been accused by the sessions of Christ Church Mankato and Good Shepherd, respectively. The accusations have led to an investigation. The investigating committees are tasked with determining whether or not there is merit to the accusations and to recommend whether or not we should be charged and tried. The language is technical and precise. Accusation is not the same thing as charges.
Thank you, Pastor Carpenter. I have corrected my post.
Great post, Seth. I enjoyed the cartoons and especially the reminder about the WLC and the 9th commandment.
One question: you linked the PCA blogs, but in the same sentence you referenced those who would wish to silence folks in the ARP. Do you have any info/links on this?
Tim: No official charges have been filed against the writers at ARPTalk, that I know of; however, one only needs to read the comments on that site to understand that there are plenty of people who would prefer if that blog didn't exist.
I am not familiar with all the Phil Saint cartoons, but the ones you post here are directed at concepts, errors, and organizations, rather than specific persons. Do you think this makes a difference?
Steve: A valid question, but I believe we have biblical warrant for naming specific individuals who espouse error. 2 Timothy 4:14-15 comes to mind (as just one example): "Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words."
And in making these public pronouncements, who gets to decide if the specific individual involved is actually espousing error -- me (the accuser) or his session/presbytery?
Steve, I believe we are called to be discerning. Jesus said not to cast our pearls before swine. Who is to determine who is "a swine"? Must I wait for a church court to rule on every individual, or can I just call a spade a spade? The PCA has already determined that the Federal Vision theology is not biblical. If I see someone teaching FV, do I have to wait for a church court to say "John Doe espouses FV" or can I use my discretion and my own judgement?
Seth: Yes, we must be discerning. But what if my session has already ruled that the specific individual is not, in fact, espousing error, but I disagree with them? Is it OK for me to bad-mouth the session when I talk to other members of our church because they got it wrong (i.e., didn't agree with me)? Is it OK for me to criticize the session publicly, outside church?
Steve: Your Session is only as authoritative as they are biblical. If they have erred, you have the right to appeal to a higher court (Presbytery then General Assembly/Synod).
Also, let's be careful with our words. It is not ok to "bad-mouth" the session, but pointing out errors is not "bad-mouthing," when done correctly. I would be very careful about "criticizing the session publicly," especially while going through the appeals process. I say "very careful" and not that I wouldn't do it at all. Discretion, again, is the key. Act wisely and blamelessly and attempt to honor God and love your neighbor all at once. It isn't easy, and each situation will be different.
But, again, we ought to be able to call a spade a spade, when that is clearly the case.
Seth: So far, we agree. Would you also agree that I would probably be out of line to use my blog to criticize the session and spread my claim that the original individual was espousing error? Would you agree that I would be especially out of line if I did this while we were still going through the appeals process? Do you think the session would be justified in being concerned that one member of their congregation was acting this way toward another member?
Steve: at this point, I'm going to have to say, I don't know, since we are speaking in vague generalities, and each individual case ought to be judged on its own merits. In other words, without specifics, I can't and won't say if doing X is right or wrong.
Whither Warfield? Into the arms of Darwin!