Editor’s Note: Shortly after the establishment of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (then known as the Presbyterian Church of America), Ned B. Stonehouse penned this (adapted) article to announce the adoption of the 1788 form of the Westminster Confession of Faith as its official confessional document. He
also took this announcement as an opportunity to discuss the confessional nature of the Reformed faith, juxtaposing it with modernism on one hand and fundamentalism on the other. He shows how progressive modernists and conservative fundamentalists both turn their backs on confessional/creedal Christianity. Thankfully, Westminster has not followed in the creedless footsteps of either movement but has, as Stonehouse shows in this article, followed in the footsteps of Machen, her founder.
–B. McClean Smith
Christendom today is, as a whole, not much interested in creeds, and particularly not in the great creeds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
which were formulated as the result of the epochal revival of true Christianity which is generally known as the Protestant Reformation. We, however, are committed with all of our hearts to creedal Christianity, and specifically to that form of Christianity which according to our judgment has come to its purest and most consistent expression in the great Reformed or Calvinistic creeds. Of these creeds the Confession of Faith which was formulated by the divines at Westminster is, as few will deny, the greatest, if only by virtue of its grand comprehensiveness.
The Attitude of Modernism
Modernism does not look favorably even upon the idea of creedal formulation. While its representatives sometimes express reverence for the historic creeds, it soon appears that such reverence does not really go beyond the respect which one generation may show for the intellectual accomplishments
of another, or the regard which a person may have for an heirloom which is without any utility whatsoever. In other words, such reverence as Modernists may show toward the historic creeds evinces merely a respect for the fathers, not an approval of the faith of the fathers.
One reason that Modernists are unwilling to accept the historic creeds as an expression of their faith is simply that they have rejected the Bible as the Word of God. Since they do not believe the Bible, they cannot be expected to look with favor upon the basic purpose of these creeds, which is that the church should make a corporate testimony to her faith in the system of truth which the Bible contains. The insistent demand, “No creed but Christ,” is a phase of the modern attack upon the authority of the Bible.
But beyond the fact of unbelief as a reason for the Modernist’s antipathy toward creeds, there is an even more ultimate explanation. And that is found in the dominant philosophy which denies that there is anything permanent about truth. Truth, instead of being viewed as unchangeable and eternally valid because God is truth, becomes merely a name for a principle of action which approves itself to man for however brief a season. The view of truth as eternal is, according to the prevailing philosophy, a heavy shackle upon man’s freedom, and a serious deterrent to human progress. To the Modernist’s I do not believe is joined the affirmation: Since truth changes, and doctrines are merely theories, belief does not really matter. Here then is the real root of the doctrinal indifference of our times. The modern church repeats the creed, but under its breath it makes its ultimate confession: I believe that belief doesn’t really have anything to do with the essence of Christianity. The step from the cry “No creed but Christ” to a “creedless Christianity” is very short indeed.
Fundamentalism and the Historic Creeds
The Fundamentalism of our day is very often marked by a depreciation of the historic creeds. At this point it is necessary to guard against misunderstanding. Fundamentalism is a term that has come to stand for the antithesis of Modernism. It recognizes the authority of the Bible, and takes its stand upon the great truth that eternal destiny is bound up with belief in the gospel. In that sense we gladly take our stand on the side of Fundamentalism. However, among fundamentalists generally there is a readiness to allow the historic creeds to be relegated to the background. For example, fundamentalists sometimes declare that, since creeds are after all merely human documents, creed subscription must not be taken too seriously—that one may properly expect nothing beyond an affirmation of general agreement with a creed. Or they may seek to unite Christians simply on the basis of brief, skeletal creeds.
The emphatic reiteration of the great verities of the faith has been necessitated in our times by the attack of Modernism upon the foundations of Christianity. While expressing, therefore, our cordial agreement with Christians who take their stand upon the Bible, we confess that we do not sympathize with the widespread depreciation of creeds among fundamentalists. We believe that we should contemplate Christianity as a whole, and that we should confess our Christian faith not merely through a few detached utterances, but through a testimony to the great Biblical system of doctrine.
And when we actually compare the articles of the new, brief creeds with the old, we judge that the old is better. Let the reader carefully read that first great chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, entitled “Of the Holy Scripture,” which is printed in this issue, and observe how the necessity and extent of Holy Scripture, the authority, sufficiency, perspicuity, and other properties of Scripture are unfolded in precise and lucid fashion. Can we possibly be content with the creeds which dismiss this great article of our faith with a sentence or two?
Dr. Machen’s View
Those who followed closely the literary and other activities of Dr. Machen knew how dear to his heart our historic creed was. No one surpassed him in his zeal that the Westminster Standards should be adopted by The Presbyterian Church of America in their purity; no one was more deeply thankful at the
happy decision of the Second General Assembly. At the time of his death he was engaged in carrying forward through his radio ministry the task of providing a popular exposition of the great system of doctrine which is expressed in these Standards. Not long before his death he expressed the hope that he might be able to round out this exposition by the completion of two other volumes which, with The Christian Faith in the Modern World and The Christian View of Man, would have provided an introduction to the Reformed faith for many of God’s little ones in this generation. Dr. Machen was often described by an unfriendly press as an “extreme fundamentalist.” And while it is perhaps true that he did more than any one in his generation to combat Modernism, yet he never applied the term fundamentalist to himself. He was distinctly a Calvinist. An interesting sidelight on his position is found in The American Lutheran for March, 1937. The writer quotes as follows from a letter which he had received from Dr. Machen last summer:
What you tell me about the use of my little books in Lutheran circles gives me particular encouragement. It makes me feel anew—what I have already felt many times—that we stand closer to a real confessional church like the Lutheran, even though its confession differs from ours, than we do to those who are adherents of a mere vague “Fundamentalism” and have broken their connection with the great theological traditions of the Christian church.
The step from the cry “No creed but Christ” to a “creedless Christianity” is very short indeed.
Our Historic Faith
We do not want our creed to become a dead letter. We hope it will never appear to shackle the life of the church. But as the church believes the Scriptures, and reflects upon their meaning, may it joyfully join, with increasing knowledge and faith, in the corporate testimony to our historic faith.