A Brief Exchange Between Lewis Sperry Chafer And J. Gresham Machen

by Stephen J. Nichols

Dr. Stephen J. Nichols is associate professor of theology at Lancaster Bible College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Just prior to the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer, hearing of J. Gresham Machen’s discontent at Princeton and of his plans to found a new seminary, decided to write Machen offering him some advice.[1] Chafer was well situated to offer such advice since he had recently navigated the process of founding Evangelical Theological College in 1924, which in 1936 changed its name to Dallas Theological Seminary.[2] He also admired Machen and his stand against modernism at Princeton Seminary and in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., and desired to express his sympathy for Machen’s ill-treatment.[3] Chafer wrote as one seminary president to another, briefly discussing the financial state of his institution, its stewardship policies, and its plans for future expansion.[4] Machen responded by speaking of the appalling nature of administrative tasks during the early days of Westminster. This brief exchange, however, concerned far more than running a seminary and revealed the theology and ecclesiology of each writer, as well as two different responses to theological modernism in Presbyterian denominations. After some introductory observations, the original letter from Chafer and Machen’s reply appear as found in the Machen Archives of Montgomery Memorial Library at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Chafer’s adamant claim that Evangelical Theological College was both Presbyterian and strictly Calvinistic might come as a surprise to many contemporary dispensationalists and those associated with Dallas Theo logical Seminary and its related institutions. He asserted, “We are distinctly a Presbyterian institution. Out of the 14 men who are now enrolled on our faculty 11 of them are loyal Presbyterians. Our theology as well as the interpretation of the Scripture in every department is strictly Calvinistic, far more so than the usual denominational seminary is today whether it be North or South.” Machen did not explicitly respond to these comments, but he must have welcomed them because they revealed the early commitment of Chafer to Presbyterianism. In fact, Chafer wanted his school free from denominational control so it could maintain orthodox Calvinistic views which were not always followed in the southern Presbyterian Church. If Evangelical Theological College were under the control of the denomination, he feared, there would be no avenue by which to expunge the seminary of anti-Calvinistic faculty.

Rollin Thomas Chafer, Lewis’s brother and secretary, registrar, and professor of homiletics at Evangelical, gave further testimony to the Presbyterian and Calvinistic aims of Dallas Seminary. In later correspondence with Machen, Rollin informed Machen that during their travels, both Lewis Chafer and William Anderson heard reports of critical and demeaning comments being made about Evangelical by representatives from Westminster. Rollin wrote:

The following are typical reports, the exact language only varying in unimportant details, (a) to students and (b) to donors: 

(a) “If you are looking for a Bible institute training Dallas will do, but if you want a theological course with scholarship come to Westminster.” 

(b) “You wouldn’t send your money to Dallas, would you? The Evangelical Theological College is only a Bible institute.”[5]

Rollin continued by noting that Evangelical offered rigorous education. Machen graciously replied by saying that these reports caused “the deepest concern,” and he assured Rollin that no official representative of Westminster had or would make any such comments. Machen did concede that people had asked him questions concerning the difference between the two seminaries and that he would point out that Evangelical was interdenominational “whereas Westminster Theological Seminary is definitely committed to the Reformed Faith,” and Evangelical was “definitely committed to the premillennial view of the Return of our Lord,” whereas Westminster was not.[6] Machen explained that when he spoke about Evangelical, “You would have had the impression that I was speaking of your institution with the utmost possible respect.”[7] The exchange ended with Rollin thanking Machen for the letter and the opportunity to clear any false impressions. Rollin concluded by reaffirming his brother’s commitment to Calvinism: “I suppose no seminary in America is more rigidly Calvinistic than we are.”[8] He added,

It gives me satisfaction also to note that you are in agreement in the matter of the legitimateness of pointing out the peculiar aims and ideals of our respective schools without casting reflection on the comprehensiveness of the courses and classroom standards. Perhaps the relation of the school to our denomination should be safeguarded from the thought that we are ‘interdenominational’ in the sense that we have a composite theology. We are interdenominational in service only. I suppose no seminary in America is more rigidly Calvinistic than we are. Our largest group of students has always been Presbyterian. The second largest group is Baptist in affiliation. Although we always have a small sprinkling of Methodists, Lutherans, Mennonites, and Episcopalians, they are accepted with the distinct understanding that we teach the theology held by the Premillenarians of the Reformed Faith. Hundreds of prominent Presbyterian ministers of both the U.S.A. and U.S. fellowships have endorsed our work.[9]

Although Rollin did not refer to Evangelical as a “distinctly a Presbyterian institution” the way his brother did, he still thought of the school as rigidly Calvinistic. Over time that perception would change even on the part of the Chafers, such as when Lewis Sperry admitted in his eight-volume Systematic Theology that his views were a form of “moderate Calvinism” since he did not hold to a limited atonement.[10]

One obvious reason for the differing perceptions of each school was eschatology. As Lewis Sperry Chafer also affirmed in his letter to Machen, he would be delighted “to see the new institution which might be formed in Philadelphia standing upon the ground of a premillennial interpretation of the Scripture.”[11] His reasons were twofold. First, premillennialism “opens up a range of doctrine which is far more extensive,” and, second, it was “what the Bible teaches.” To this Machen responded, “As you probably know, I do not hold the premillennial view, and that view is not in accordance with the tradition of Princeton Seminary which we are endeavoring to preserve.” Machen acknowledged, however, that the issue did not prevent him from having “warm fellowship” with premillennialists and that “there have been at Princeton here and there men who hold it.”

The curious element missing from this exchange was a recognition that premillennialism and dispensationalism were not identical. Chafer may well have meant dispensationalism. By 1929 dispensational premillennialism had emerged at the popular level through Bible conferences, Bible institutes and schools, and especially the Scofield Reference Bible.[12] But it was not well known in academic circles. Chafer knew the difference, thus making his silence odd.[13] Over time that difference would become pronounced and significant. For instance, in the preface to his Systematic Theology, Chafer consistently affirmed that his theology was premillennial and dispensational. He added, “These pages represent what has been, and is, taught in the classrooms of Dallas Theological Seminary.”[14] Here he distinguished between premillennialism and dispensationalism. Nevertheless, in other places, such as an editorial in Bibliotheca Sacra, he refused to make any such distinction, noting that to do so is rather “fantastic” and unwarranted.[15] Part of what this exchange between Chafer and Machen shows is that in 1929 dispensational premillennialism had yet to emerge as a known theological system.

The relative obscurity of dispensationalism in academic circles may explain why Machen stopped short of castigating it as he would a few years later. During the controversy over the use of the Scofield Reference Bible in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he wrote an editorial for The Presbyterian Guardian, which stated that “Premillennialists as well as those who hold opposing views may become ministers or elders or deacons in the Presbyterian Church of America [Orthodox Presbyterian Church].”[16] The next month, in an editorial defending his colleague R. B. Kuiper, Machen explained that “In attacking the Dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible, Professor Kuiper was not attacking in the slightest, as being incompatible with the Reformed system, the Premillenarian view of the return of Christ.”[17]

At the same time, in private correspondence, Machen condemned dispensationalism. In a letter to F. H. Camp of Wichita, Kansas, Machen refers to “the dreadful evil of Dr. Scofield’s notes on the fifth chapter of Matthew.”[18] Two days later, Machen’s longtime friend and associate, J. Oliver Buswell, wrote Machen regarding controversies over Christian liberty and eschatology at Westminster Seminary and in the fledgling Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The events to which Buswell referred, however, strained their friendship. Buswell accused Machen of misjudging Carl McIntire and expressed his alarm over events at Westminster.[19] Machen started a draft in response, but, due to his untimely death on January 1, 1937, he never sent a reply. This is how abrupt the letter’s ending was:

In the first place, then, I do not think you quite understood the nature of my reference to the Scofield Reference Bible in the issue of The Presbyterian Guardian. I was not trying at all by the editorial to convince dispensationalists that their view is wrong. If that had been the intention you are quite right in holding that the editorial should have been specific in its criticisms, as Dr. Allis and Mr. Murray were specific in their articles—and as (I may add) I myself was specific in my editorial of … What I was doing in that editorial was simply (1) to call attention to those articles and others that might be published in the future, and (2) and to testify very clearly as to what my own position is. 

You see, I hold the use of the Scofield Bible to be a very terrible evil that is doing untold harm, doctrinally and morally, to the souls of men. I am greatly confirmed in that conviction by this letter of yours; for this letter does seem to show that users of the Scofield Bible.[20]

The letter obviously stopped at an intriguing place. Nevertheless, the draft reveals that Machen viewed dispensationalism as contrary to Scripture and the Westminster Confession and as having deleterious effects on the church. While this controversy occurred after the exchange with Chafer, it nonetheless sheds some light on Machen’s perspective on dispensationalism and premillennialism, and shows his unfamiliarity with Chafer’s views at the time of his exchange with Chafer.

Another important difference between Machen and Chafer concerned ecclesiastical matters. Both shared a disdain of the “denominational machinery” wreaking havoc in the mainline Presbyterian denominations. Both also expressed the intention of maintaining the independence of their schools. Still, different ecclesiologies were at work. Chafer reflected more a congregational view in his critique of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Convinced that the membership of the church at large would not tolerate the actions of the General Assembly, he advised Machen to call for a referendum. He also blamed the errors inherent in denominations on liberalism. Only the mission agencies that were truly conservative were independent, according to Chafer. He also noted that Evangelical was guided by “an independent board made up of men who are true to the Word of God.” Chafer expressed suspicions about endowments and the possibility of luring “unprincipled and unsound” faculty through lucrative salaries. At the same time, independent missions that operate on faith were also immune to modernism because such agencies were “most undesirable to every modern mind and there is no plunder which they deem worth securing.”

Machen’s frustrations with the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. ran in different directions from Chafer’s. First, Machen was not at all sure that the membership of the church could rescue the denomination from the rampant “ignorance as well as blatant unbelief” undermining it. Nor did he share Chafer’s congregational impulses. Second, while distancing himself from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Machen clearly affirmed his commitment to the Presbyterian tradition and the Westminster Standards. “It is clear,” he wrote, “that our new institution should be free of that machinery, while at the same time it is thoroughly committed to the Westminster Confession.” For that matter, he also asserted that the new seminary would follow in the tradition of Princeton. His contention with both the denomination and the seminary concerned the abandonment of the heritage and their shared disregard for the Confession. He was still committed, however, to the tradition behind Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

Finally, this exchange reveals different responses to the modernist contro versy. Historians have often described the fundamentalists as a homogeneous group. As Marsden, Hart, and others assert, and as this letter exchange illustrates, however, the response to modernism was a much more complex phenomenon.[21] Machen and Chafer represent two aspects of 1920s conservative Protestantism.

Chafer’s involves a populist and biblicist approach which emphasized the private interpretation of the Bible, the right of the laity to arbitrate theological controversies, and the virtue of parachurch organizations.[22] Chafer’s own controversies with the Presbyterian Church U.S. bear this out. Craig Blaising notes that “For three decades, battles erupted in print regarding the purity and loyalty of Chafer’s Reformed theology.”[23] Chafer’s dispensationalism and his notion of two religions (Judaism and Christianity), which followed from a sharp distinction between Israel and the church, were viewed as incompatible with chapter VII of the Westminster Confession on the unity of the one covenant. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S. pursued this question and controversy ensued.[24] Chafer represented his side of the issue in editorials in Bibliotheca Sacra, which showed his discomfort with the Westminster Standards. In fact, he saw the Standards as being at odds in places with the Bible. “Pressure against the premillennial group within the church,” he wrote, “cannot in the end result otherwise that in a division between those who adhere to the creed and those who adhere to the Scriptures.[25] “It is time for any theological Rip Van Winkle to awake to the recognition of that which has developed doctrinally since a company of good men drew up the Confession of Faith.”[26] Then in an appeal to the latitudinarian theological ethos of the Presbyterian Church U.S., Chafer wondered whether it would be “a wiser course, in view of the present accepted liberty to revise the standards of the church, so to reconstruct its text that a little latitude may be accorded to the large number of men who can accept only a dispensational theology and thus allow them to remain in the fellowship of their brethren.”[27]

Chafer’s controversy with the Presbyterian Church U.S. stands in marked contrast to Machen’s in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Chafer was reprimanded for holding a theological position in conflict with the Confession while Machen chastises the denomination for straying from the Westminster Standards. Further, Chafer called on the denomination to revise the Confession while Machen established a new denomination that would main tain confessional integrity. In other words, Chafer espoused Presbyterianism, but was suspect of both its polity and confessional standards. Machen represented a confessional posture as opposed to Chafer’s evangelical outlook. To be sure, Machen did found a parachurch organization, the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, but he also founded a Presbyterian denomination.[28] D. G. Hart, in his study of Machen, concludes, “The preservation of Old School Presbyterianism through a Calvinist seminary and a confessional church free from the constraints of establishmentarian Protestantism—this was Machen’s Legacy and Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church clearly embodied those ideals.”[29]

Though brief, these letters reveal the theologies and perspectives of two significant and influential individuals. Chafer emphatically appealed to both Presbyterianism and Calvinism, even though subsequent controversies would show the limits of those appeals. At the same time, his doctrinal position was defined primarily by dispensationalism even though Chafer did not acknowledge a difference between historic and dispensational premillennial views here. In contrast, Machen distanced himself from premillennialism, joined Chafer in chastising the mainline church, while also affirming explicitly the Westminster Standards. In the end, this exchange suggests, as Hart has argued, that Machen’s Presbyterian confessionalism resulted in a position that was distinct from either fundamentalism or evangelicalism. Yet, as revealing as these letters are of each writer’s intellectual makeup, they are nonetheless letters, not essays. Consequently, despite the theological differences between Chafer and Machen, this exchange is marked by graciousness, warmth, and mutual appreciation, traits not usually associated with theological conservatives.[30]

__________

Elim Chapel, Winnipeg, Man.

July 3rd, 1929

Rev. Gresham Machen, D.D.

Princeton, N.J.

My dear Dr. Machen,

I have followed developments concerning the future of Princeton and noted the final action at the General Assembly with great sorrow. It does not seem possible to surrender the unmeasurable influence which Princeton has exerted in the cause of our orthodox faith and I have carried you much on my heart as the one who perhaps has suffered as much, if not more, than any other in the midst of these displays of the power of evil. I am satisfied that if the cause which is represented in the Princeton issue could be carried back to the membership at large in the Northern Church there would be an overwhelming vote in favor of the orthodox position. After all the church is really what the whole membership chooses to make it. It’s [sic] officers hold their posts by virtue of the trust that is imposed in them by the membership at large and we have the spectacle before our eyes of the very machinery which was created to protect the spiritual interests of the church becoming the very agency by which those interests are shattered. There is a parallel at the present time in Russia with its more than 150,000,000 people, many of them indifferent and very many of them unsympathetic to the present government. Nevertheless authority is held and enforced over unwilling people by a group that is now numbering 1,400,000. It has seemed to me that it would be one of the most revealing and at the same time crucial decisions if by a referendum the voice of the church could be secured. If there is no provision in the constitution of our Presbyterian churches for such an essential appeal as this, the constitution is certainly greatly at fault. While I am not sufficiently informed to have an opinion concerning the legal aspect of this situation, I am convinced that there would be little hope in legal action because the forces that have voted in this matter are in the majority so far as the church courts are concerned. The decision which would silence everything would be the one to which I have referred but that may not be possible.

I have had intimations that there might be a new seminary established and perhaps located in Philadelphia with a faculty composed for the present of those who are forced to retire from the Princeton service. I wish to assure you that I am heartily in sympathy with such a move as this and believe that there is a very important field for this service and if our institution can lend any aid or if I can personally we would be very happy indeed to do so. I have great sympathy however for those who undertake the founding of a new theological institution in these days, especially if they have to begin at the zero point as it was necessary for us to do. In your case, however, you would have the co-operation of a faculty thoroughly trained in seminary work. This we did not have and you would also have the backing of a great company of people who now feel their denominational interests more keenly than ever before. We have had no denominational backing as you know and in matters of financing and in general moral support this is a very important feature.

I am wondering however whether a new seminary can afford to place itself under the care of the present organization of the Northern Church. Would it not mean that as soon as the institution was worth stealing the machinery of the church would be used again as it has been used recently to rob you of all the fruits of your labors? This I may say was the most important reason influencing the Dallas College to remain outside of denominational control. We are distinctly a Presbyterian institution. Out of the 14 men who are now enrolled in our Faculty 11 of them are loyal Presbyterians. Our theology as well as the interpretation of the Scripture in every department is strictly Calvinistic, far more so than the usual denominational seminary is today whether it be North or South. However, just so long as there are different interpretations of the Scripture tolerated in the denominational organization, there is no power that can be evoked to keep these various and conflicting interpretations from being represented on the faculty and governing boards of the denominational school. The same is true in the mission field. The Presbyterian Church is suffering because of modernists on the mission field but nothing can be said or done so long as modernists are welcome in the organization at home. Your attention has no doubt been called to the fact that not one faith mission in the world is troubled with modernism. I am referring to such organizations as the China Inland Mission, the Africa Inland Mission and the Central American Mission and a half a dozen more. These missions are controlled by independent boards. The very faith basis on which they stand is most undesirable to every modern mind and there is no plunder which they deem worth securing. We are finding this same principle is operating in our own college.

We have an independent board made up of men who are true to the Word of God. They do not offer any plunder to the modernists. We refuse any fixed endowments. All legacies must be released completely to the untrammeled use of the institution. Such funds can be invested as reserve fund if thought wise but as freely as they can be called in for any purpose whatsoever. This does not provide for salaries in the future which might be especially attractive to unprincipled and unsound men. Of course we do not solicit money in any way by personal appeals and as the matter now stands God may terminate the work of this institution whenever he may choose to do so. I think you would be interested to know that operating on this basis which is purely one of faith, our property is now valued at $250,000 and in our five years history we have received and expended about $150,000.

Most naturally I would delight to see the new institution which might be formed in Philadelphia standing upon the ground of a premillennial interpretation of the Scripture since this interpretation opens up a range of doctrine which is far more extensive and of course to my opinion more representative of what the Bible teaches. We believe our men who are trained from this view point have a vital message that can be secured in no other way. We are proving that there is a conservative and constructive way of handling these great interpretations. It has been in my mind from the beginning the one college at Dallas was perhaps only a beginning. We have all felt that we cannot do our best work if the student body is allowed to exceed 75 or 100 men and that as soon as we have reached such proportions in the first institution it would then be time for us to consider the founding of another school in another part of the country. At present we are drawing our students from all parts of the continent and across the seas. With very little student aid the traveling expenses are considerable. There is demand for a similar school on the Pacific Coast and for one in the centre of Canada and for one in the East unless perchance this new proposed institution in Philadelphia shall satisfy that demand. We would be greatly encouraged indeed if it might do so and we will delight in any case to have the closest possible fellowship in that work if it is decided upon.

I know the strain through which you have passed has been very great and you have stood for the truth and great companies of loyal people are in the closest sympathy with you but there is no communion between light and darkness and I sincerely trust that you may be situated soon where you will be free from all such internal conflict as has been experienced in the Princeton organization. Surely a day of rest is due you.

May God richly bless you and your fellows in this time of need is my prayer.

Most cordially yours,

Lewis Sperry Chafer [signed]

LSC/EB

__________

August 1, 1929

Rev. President Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.D.

Elim Chapel

Winnipeg, Manitoba

My dear Dr. Chafer:

I am deeply interested in your letter of July 3rd, which I have just re-read with great profit. The example of your institution is very encouraging to us at the present moment, and I rejoice with all my heart in your cordial sympathy with us in our endeavor, as I have long rejoiced in our fellowship in the Faith.

We agree entirely with you in holding that our new seminary should be quite free of ecclesiastical control, especially since my view of the condition of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. is not quite so favorable as is yours. I am not at all sure that on a referendum vote the Church would stand for a really evangelical policy; ignorance as well as blatant unbelief have undermined it too much. At any rate I quite agree with you as to the hostility of the ecclesiastical machinery. It is clear, therefore, that our new institution should be free of that machinery, while at the same time it is thoroughly committed to the Westminster Confession.

As you probably know, I do not hold the premillennial view, and that view is not in accordance with the main tradition of Princeton Seminary which we are endeavoring to preserve. At the same time the warm fellowship which I have with men who like you do hold that view is one of the real joys of my life, and there have been at Princeton here and there men who hold it.

I rejoice greatly in the news which you give me of the progress of the Evangelical Theological College, which is certainly rendering a splendid service to the cause which we both have at heart. As for our enterprise—I trust it is not really ours but, like yours, the Lord’s—at first I thought it impossible to begin the sessions of a new theological seminary as soon as next autumn. I was quite clear that I could not remain at Princeton, for that would have been to assist in concealing from evangelical people the true meaning of what has been done. But I did fear that we should have to postpone the opening of the new institution until the autumn of 1930. It was a little group of Christian laymen in Philadelphia who, in an informal meeting that the[y] held, changed my view. Even as it is, the task is appalling, but we hope that we shall have the blessing of God.

Mr. Morgan H. Thomas, who is acting as treasurer, has placed a good office at the immediate disposal of the movement at his place of business, 18 South Sixth Street, Philadelphia, and we are fortunate in having secured as Registrar and Secretary Rev. Paul Woolley, who is taking charge of the office at once.

Please let me say again how very greatly I have profited by your counsel and how earnestly I rejoice in your approval of what we are doing and in your fellowship with us in the gospel.

Cordially yours,

[unsigned]

Notes

1. LSC to JGM, July 3, 1929, Machen Archives, Montgomery Library, Westminster Theological Seminary [hereafter MA]; and JGM to LSC, August 1, 1929, MA. I am grateful to Grace Mullen, Archivist, Westminster Theological Seminary, for her expert help in locating these materials and assisting in the research for this article.
2. For a thorough study of the founding of Evangelical Theological College, see John D. Hannah, “The Social and Intellectual History of the Origins of the Evangelical Theological College,” (Ph.D. diss. University of Texas, 1988).
3. Chafer also admired Machen as a scholar. For four years, Chafer tried unsuccessfully to secure Machen to deliver the W. H. Griffith Thomas lectures at Evangelical. He also sent Machen questionnaires regarding Evangelical’s curriculum. See LSC to JGM, October 30, 1931, MA; JGM to LSC, October 30, 1931, MA; and LSC to JGM, October 22, 1931, MA.
4. It is more accurate to note that although Machen founded Westminster Theological Seminary, he never served as president. The seminary was administered by faculty committee and did not install its first president until later.
5. RTC to JGM, March 7, 1933, MA.
6. JGM to RTC, March 16, 1933, MA.
7. Ibid.
8. RTC to JGM, March 25, 1933, MA.
9. Ibid.
10. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947–48) 3:180, cf. 3:179–88.
11. For a full treatment of Chafer’s eschatology, see Jeffrey J. Richards, The Promise of Dawn: The Eschatology of Lewis Sperry Chafer (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991).
12. For a discussion of the impact of the Scofield Reference Bible, see Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992) 97-98.
13. For instance, along with his associates, C. I. Scofield founded the Sea Cliff Bible Conferences because of differing views on the rapture within participants of the Niagara Bible Conference. This demonstrates that as early as the turn of the century there were dispensationalists and premillennialists alike who were well aware of the differences between the two.
14. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:xxxviii.
15. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensational Distinctions Denounced,” Bibliotheca Sacra 101 (1944) 257.
16. “Premillennialism,” The Presbyterian Guardian 3 (October 24, 1936) 21. The editorial may have been co-written by Machen and Ned B. Stonehouse as both served as the editors at that time. The name change from Presbyterian Church of America to Orthodox Presbyterian Church occurred in 1939.
17. “The Presbytery of California and the ‘Christian Beacon,’” The Presbyterian Guardian 3 (November 14, 1936) 42. The full context concerns the controversy between Machen and others on the Westminster faculty with J. Oliver Buswell and Carl McIntire. The intriguing story is told in the pages of The Presbyterian Guardian and McIntire’s own newspaper, The Christian Beacon, as well as in the General Assemblies in the years 1936–37.
18. JGM to FHC, December 2, 1936, MA.
19. JOB to JGM, December 4, 1936, MA.
20. JGM to JOB [draft], no date, MA. For writings on dispensationalism by Machen’s colleagues, see Oswald T. Allis, “Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of Scripture,” Evangelical Quarterly 8 (1936) 22-35; and John Murray, “The ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ and the ‘Kingdom of God,’” The Presbyterian Guardian (December 26, 1936) 139-41.
21. See George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980) and Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), especially 182–201 for his essay on Machen. See also D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) and D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, Fighting the Good Fight: A Brief History of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1995). Hart, in Defending the Faith, expands the two positions to four, which he identifies as being composed of: fundamentalists, evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and confessionalists (169).
22. For the historical context of this populist tendency in American Evangelicalism, see Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
23. Craig Blaising, “Lewis Sperry Chafer,” Handbook of Evangelical Theologians (Walter Elwell, ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 92. Blaising adds that Warfield challenged Chafer’s Calvinism after the appearance of He That is Spiritual as early as the 1910s (93). Warfield’s critical review of Chafer’s book appears in Princeton Theological Review 17 (1919) 322-27.
24. See Dispensationalism and the Confession of Faith. Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Changes in the Confession of Faith … (Richmond: Board of Christian Education, Presbyterian Church in the United States, 1944). For a brief, but informative discussion of the full context of the controversy, see Blaising, “Lewis Sperry Chafer,” 92–95.
25. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensational Distinctions Challenged,” Bibliotheca Sacra 100 (1943) 340. Chafer reflects a rather naive view of theology by ignoring the hermeneutical question in this controversy. Chafer assumes that his position is biblical, whereas the position of the Confession is not biblical. He does not raise the question of his own interpretation of the text.
26. Ibid., 341. In an editorial on this same issue one year later, he notes similarly that “The Confession of Faith, since it is three hundred years old, could not incorporate the great flood of light which by the Spirit has since been thrown upon the text of the Bible,” “Dispensational Distinctions Denounced,” Bibliotheca Sacra 101 (1944) 258.
27. “Dispensational Distinctions Challenged,” 345.
28. Additionally, while not an official denominational seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary does have close ties to both the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America and Machen insisted that those involved with the seminary be committed to the Confession ex animo.
29. D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith, 165.
30. Chafer used Evangelical Theological College letterhead which includes the names and titles of the administrators and the faculty. Additionally, under the name reads “(denominationally unrelated).” The letterhead also gives the Dallas address, but Chafer added the Elim Chapel address, which evidently was where he was located that summer and briefly into the fall. At the end of the letter he hand wrote, “Until Sept 15 address Elim Chapel Winnipeg.”