Volume 2: Issue 6 | December 2019
Explanation of the Second Commandment:
Who is Worship for, Really?
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
-- Exodus 20:4-6 (ESV)
As we seek to obey the Second Commandment we are confronted with a yawning gap between what most Christians say and what they actually do. They say they revere God's Ten Commandments. But far too many do all they can to downplay and disregard the second one. Roman Catholics hide it by lumping it in with the first and then dividing the Tenth Commandment to still get Ten. The Eastern Orthodox limit its reach by alleging that God is only offended by three-dimensional depictions of himself, not by icons.
Many Protestants, meanwhile, are willing to be convinced by the argument that by coming in visible flesh in which he received worship, Jesus nullified the Second Commandment. But where in the Bible do we find support for this argument? The Bible never describes Jesus' earthly appearance, so we cannot picture him accurately. Furthermore, far from nullifying this commandment, the New Testament instead repeats it, warning us to keep ourselves from idols. (1 John 5:21) If Jesus were among us in the flesh, we would rightly worship him by sight. But as long as he remains in heaven, we walk and worship by faith, not by sight. We look forward to the sight. But for us Jesus is the Word, not the Picture, and when artists draw pictures of Jesus they inevitably make him in an image that comes from their own imaginations.
But perhaps the emphasis on God's jealousy, so obvious in the Second Commandment, shows that this commandment belongs only to the Mosaic covenant? Now that Jesus has revealed God's grace and truth, is God no longer the jealous God of the Old Testament, who will not share his glory with an idol even of himself? Again, many Protestants think in these terms. But Jesus was so jealous for the purity of God's house that he chased the moneychangers out of the temple. We are to avoid pagan worship because it will make God jealous. “Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Corinthians 10:22) The analogy of God and Israel as husband and wife, so central to explaining the jealousy and wrath of God against idolatry, is continued in the New Testament when Jesus and the church are compared to husband and wife. (Ephesians 5:23-32) No, God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, is still a jealous God. Thinking of God who reveals himself in the Old Testament as different from God who reveals himself in the New Testament echoes Marcion’s ancient heresy: Marcion taught that the loving New Testament god was a different god from the angry Old Testament god.
The Second Commandment stands, unchanged by Incarnation or New Covenant. And Jesus taught us to interpret the Ten Commandments broadly, not narrowly. (See Matthew 5:21-48) Out of respect for him, we are therefore to interpret the Second Commandment broadly, as forbidding us to invent anything in the worship of God, beginning with making pictures of God the Father, or of Jesus himself who is God the Word come in the flesh. This fits the nature of the case. We say that it is God we are worshiping, God we are seeking to please. What pleases God? He must tell us. We cannot consult ourselves, for we are neither God nor pure in heart. What does God tell us that he wants in our worship of him?
God commands his people to assemble before him, so we are to worship together with the church. (Leviticus 23:3, Hebrews 10:25) God commands us to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in our hearts to God. (Colossians 3:16) We should not imagine that this sung Word of Christ is something written by singer-songwriters in the twenty-first century. Their songs are their own word. Rather, see the ancient titles of “psalm,” “hymn” and “song” given to Psalms such as 66, 67, or 88. God commands us to sing his Word. The Psalms are the Word of Christ. (See Luke 24:44, Hebrews 10:5-9) God commands us to pray, both singly and together with the church.
Timothy was to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching, from which we see that we are to devote ourselves to hearing the Scripture read and taught. (1 Timothy 4:13-16) Those coming into the church are to be baptized, and we are to wait for one another, and so eat the Lord's Supper together (Acts 2:38, 41; 16:33, 1 Corinthians 11:33, 24-32). Offerings are to be offered, and a blessing given. (1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Malachi 3:10, Exodus 23:15, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Numbers 6:23-27) When God's providence so directs, we are to fast. (Joel 1:14, Isaiah 22:12-14, Acts 13:3, 14:23) Beyond these essential elements, we are not to invent further ways to worship the Lord, no matter how much they may appeal to people.
Our King wants us to worship him alone and abide in him. The enemy will gladly use anything to distract us from his Way. So, knowing our distractibility, let us shun every manmade device, and cling to God in pure worship. Is worship important? See how prominent it is! God addresses it immediately, in his Second Commandment, and addressed it again, as soon as He had finished giving the Tenth Commandment. (See Exodus 20:17-26) Unacceptable worship led to the first murder, and both angels and glorified saints in heaven worship God continually. Worship is our right response to God's salvation. (Romans 11:36-12:1) So let us worship our King as he has directed us. God knows what pleases him better than we do.
-- John Edgar
Proverbs Exposition: God Hides, We Look
"These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied:
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
but the glory of kings is to search out a matter."
-- Proverbs 25:1-2
What do we know about how God cares for us, or his rule of the nations, or his government of the universe? As the Bible often teaches, only what He reveals to us by His Word and Works. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).” “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding (Job 38:4).” “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? (Isaiah 40:13, Job 41:11)?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (Romans 11:33-36).” “Now when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Seal up the things which the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down (Revelation 10:4).” When we remember how very little we know about God and His ways, how vast and complex is His Creation, how unpredictable is the course of our lives and the destiny of the nations, we understand our own smallness and the glory of God.
Kings and rulers, however, gain glory by searching into the affairs of their kingdoms. When they shine light on wrongdoing and punish it, and when they reward what is good, they act in the place of God as His agents. It is their glory.
People, of course, want to know the future and understand fully what God is doing, not wanting to let the secret things of God remain secret. That drive to know what God has not revealed drives pagan divination, and the wish to control the Almighty is the motive of magic. These temptations are not unknown to God’s People and sneak into efforts to “know God’s will for my life,” and to pray in such a way that God is somehow obligated to do as we think best.
A king who does not know what is happening in his kingdom, or what his servants are doing in his name has no glory and deserves no honor. Just as elders should know their congregations as a shepherd knew his sheep (I Peter 5:2), so should civil rulers know their subjects: that is their glory. But God, who knows all things, conceals much from us, and that is His glory.
-- Bill Edgar
Elders' Memories of Pastors Speaking to Them as Children
“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them,
for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
-- Matthew 19:14
When I was a member at Bloomington, Indiana, RP Church, two things stood out to me about Rich Holdeman’s preaching. Every sermon ended with the gospel and tied the Scripture passage to Christ and his saving work on the cross. And every sermon began with instructions to children – draw a picture of X, and listen to the sermon to include Y in your drawing. In this way, he clearly told children, “This sermon is for you too,” and every week they were instructed – not invited or encouraged, but instructed – to listen and participate in the worship of the Lord.
In light of our presbytery’s confession on our day of fasting regarding children who have fallen away from the faith, it seems appropriate to consider how we can minister now to our children in the weekly worship service. Broomall, now my church, has a monthly prayer calendar so that the entire church can pray each day for one or more of the children in the church. By the end of each month, we have prayed for every child in the church. As a mother bringing my own two children to church, I am seeking to be more aware of how we should be including our children in the church’s worship of God. How can we be drawing their attention to our Savior and to His word?
Here are some reflections from elders in Atlantic Presbytery about their childhood memories of church and how pastors ministered in their lives in the worship service.
While Joe Rizzo of Broomall RPC wouldn’t say that his faith was awakened until he was in his late teens, he acknowledges the role that the liturgy and foundation of gospel preaching had in his life. Years later, he was able to return to what he knew and remembered from the consistent preaching and repetition of the Word. For example, the weekly recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments by the congregation helped embed God’s truth in his mind, long before he came to saving faith. He sees the importance for children to be able to “participate, engage, and claim some ownership of the congregation.” Joe also remembers the important role that elders had in supporting his family, even going so far as to pick him and his siblings up to go to church when his single mother was unwell and unable to take them. He knew it was important to the elders for his siblings and him to be present at the worship of God.
Jeremy Nelson, an elder at Hazleton, grew up in an OP church where his father was the pastor. He remembers short children’s sermons about a particular Bible character or principle in which the children went to the front of the church and the pastor came down to talk to them directly. He says that in addition to remembering some of those messages, he also still remembers specific illustrations from sermons.
Not growing up in the RPCNA, Phil Urie, also an elder of Hazelton RPC, thought about Paul Brace’s ministry in their church. He notes that Paul knows the names of all of the children and believes that even young children can come to faith. As soon as children are able to make a profession of faith, they become communicant members, not waiting until they are older. Phil also notices that Paul’s vocabulary and language are accessible even to the younger members of the congregation.
David Coon, pastor at White Lake RPC, remembers his mother bringing various activities to help keep his younger sister quiet and attentive. He also recalls memorizing and reciting portions of the Shorter Catechism in third grade. At the end of the quarter, kids received a silver dollar as a reward for what they memorized! In fourth grade, children memorized John 14 and received a psalter. He still has his.
Michael Jessop from Elkins Park RPC notes how Scripture memory helped his children stay engaged during John Edgar’s sermons. Any time they heard a verse they had memorized, it got their attention. Additionally, he appreciates how his children participate during the Psalm and prayer request portion of the evening service. Michael observes that God uses repetition to teach us, so he is happy the church gives his children the opportunity to grow through repetition in their requests.
Will Werts remembers how Bill Edgar frequently told stories in his sermons. He also remembers when the pastor would emphasize certain parts of the sermon, occasionally even yelling to make his point. In the afternoons, Bill would call the children to the front of the church for a Bible lesson. Will would pay close attention in fear that he might be called on to answer a question about the story just told. He also remembers how Ralph Jackson, a World War I marine veteran and an old elder in the church, would station himself after church so that no one could leave without greeting him, looking him in the eye, and shaking his hand firmly. He taught all the young boys how to shake hands properly.
David Robson from Christ RPC in Providence distinctly remembers his father, Ed Robson, specifically addressing the children throughout the course of the sermon. By incorporating statements such as “to my young friends,” or “children, are you listening?” his father focused the attention of the children on one of the main points of the sermon at an age-appropriate level. David also recognizes the value of pop culture references or stories about the pastor’s own youth to grab the attention of the children (and adults). A phrase that his father would often use is, “The mind can absorb only what the seat can endure.”
I present these memories and reflections without drawing any conclusions about what preachers should do. I will, however, remind you of the vow you made when you answered “Yes” to this question at the baptisms of church children: “Do you, the members of this congregation, receive this child into your fellowship and promise to pray for him/her, and to help and encourage the parents as they seek to bring him/her up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?” The children are part of the church. At their baptisms we promised to encourage their parents, pray for the children, and receive them into our fellowship. God heard that promise.
-- Lisa Edgar
Report on the Atlantic Presbytery Meeting, Fall 2019
The Atlantic Presbytery met in Walton, New York on September 27 and 28. The congregation there hosted us graciously and generously, as always. Even without a pastor, the Walton church is intensifying its pursuit of establishing a new congregation in Oneonta, 26 miles away. They began a couple of years ago with a weekly Bible Study led by John Cripps, along with occasional Psalm Sings. Now they host a weekly prayer meeting on Mondays at 4:00 p.m. and in the past month have begun an evening worship service at 5:00 p.m. in a rented church on a prominent downtown street. Please pray for this new work, undertaken because the time seems right, with neither a local church planter nor a pastor in Walton. Should you know someone in or near Oneonta, please encourage them to visit this new work.
We are emboldened to ask for your prayers by the answers the Lord has recently given us. Thanks to the generosity of many congregations and individuals in and beyond our presbytery, the Elkins Park congregation has completed its twin tasks of a new parsonage roof and a new HVAC system debt-free. Likewise, God provided generously for the Coldenham-Newburgh congregation when they were suddenly confronted with the need for a new septic tank. We thank God for his provision for these two congregations. Along these lines, Geneva College is appealing to the church to help support former chaplain Rut Etheridge as his job changes over to Bible professor. The chaplaincy position was eliminated for budgetary reasons, and donations are needed to provide for him in the Bible department. (See the appeal for funds elsewhere in this issue of A Little Strength.)
Perhaps the most important duty of a presbytery is the examination and certification of theological students, that is, future pastors. Zach Dotson, currently the intern at Coldenham-Newburgh and an online student at Greenville Theological Seminary, preached very well on 2 Corinthians 1:3-7, on the theme “The God of All Comfort.” The presbytery was pleased by his progress and passed him unanimously. Zach also passed his examination on Pastoral and Evangelistic Gifts. He has been licensed to preach and is nearly halfway to being licensed to receive a call. Hunter Jackson, a member at Broomall and a student at Westminster Theological Seminary, was unanimously passed on his examination on Systematic Theology and Distinctive Principles. He is nearly ready to be licensed to preach. Please pray for the progress of both young men, as they grow as believers, husbands, fathers, and preachers all at the same time.
Pastor Christian Adjemian, formerly of Cambridge, used to explain Presbyterian church government in congregationalist New England by saying that it provides both transparency and accountability in church affairs. As a presbytery, we are currently working towards ensuring best practices in transparent governance at the Synod level. Last summer our proposal to have the minutes of Synod’s Boards and Committees reviewed by elders the same way that Presbytery minutes are reviewed annually. That proposal passed the Synod easily. Our second proposal, to specify that a presbytery whose judgment is being appealed against should not be able to vote on the appeal (mandatory recusal), is tied up in committee. Our third proposal, to have the salaries of Board employees printed in the Minutes of Synod, as was often done in earlier years, was sent back to us for further refinement. We appointed a three-man committee to consult with the relevant boards and present a clear, detailed paper in 2020. A fourth proposal, to have the actual numerical totals of Synod elections made public, is now being prepared. It is normal for sinful human nature to avoid accountability, but since our Testimony proclaims that Christians should walk in the light (see RP Testimony 25:19), we hope to maintain the transparency and accountability of Presbyterian church government.
A year ago the presbytery directed each congregation to identify two places within an hour's drive and pray that God would be pleased to begin a church there. At this presbytery the elders were challenged to make these two places known. Two places where public worship is occurring are:
Walton - Pray for Oneonta, where evening worship has begun
Hazleton - Pray for Harrisburg, where evening worship occurs monthly
And the following congregations are praying for these locations:
Cambridge:
Framingham/Natick (to their west)
Chelsea/Revere (to their east)
Christ Church RI:
Groton-New London CT (west)
Falls River-New Bedford MI (east)
Elkins Park:
South Jersey (Bible study meets bi-weekly)
Philadelphia
Ridgefield Park:
Allendale NJ (northwest)
Southern Westchester CO (northeast)
White Lake:
Is starting regional evangelistic Bible studies to discern the Lord's will
We provide this list both to request your prayers, and to invite you to think if you know anyone who lives near these locations. If you do, consider introducing them to the people involved in these locations. Your pastor or elders can help you get in touch with those involved.
The presbytery finished its meeting on time and drove home from beautiful Delaware County New York,
thanking God for a good meeting.
-- John Edgar
The “Cornerstone Speech” of Alexander H. Stephens
Until very recently, the Reformed Presbyterian Church was a northern church, with one black congregation in Selma, Alabama, and one white northern migrant congregation in Orlando, Florida. Now we have begun to plant churches in states below the Mason-Dixon Line, where the American Constitution protected slavery before the Civil War. We have also had several joint synods with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, an old southern denomination. Inevitably, the issue arises, at least occasionally, of how to understand the American history of race-based slavery. (Several decades ago, at a different joint synod event, a Virginian from a micro-Presbyterian church came over to our RP table as we ate lunch. He said to us, “You don’t know much about us, but we know a lot about you. You have God’s blessing on you because of your emphasis on covenanting and your use of the Psalms. But you are under God’s curse because of your stand on slavery.” Rich Ganz, the son of recent Jewish immigrants who was sitting with me, nearly fell off his chair in astonishment. I was surprised, but not much.)
At the same time as our contacts with Christians from the South increase, some are embracing new forms of racism, such as “kinism” and certain kinds of “identity politics.” There are new concepts, such as “structural racism” and “covert racism,” with “micro-aggressions” thrown in. Politicians and journalists regularly hurl the charge of “racism” as a weapon at their political enemies.
What is racism? What did American Southern leaders proclaim as their states seceded? The February 12, 1947 Covenanter Witness, on Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, printed part of what is known is the “Cornerstone Speech,” delivered in 1861 by the Vice President of the new Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens at Savannah, Georgia, three weeks before the South attacked Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina and began the Civil War. In his speech, Stephens explained the virtues of the new Confederate Constitution, with race-based slavery as its foundational virtue.
Since 1865, many people, including Stephens himself, have denied that race-based slavery lay at the root of the American Civil War. At the start of the war, of course, Lincoln said that the North was fighting to preserve the Union, but the South left the Union over the issue of slavery. Here is the conclusion of Stephens’ speech, taken down by reporters, and then approved by him before they printed it – although after the War he claimed to have been misquoted. Stephen’s speech that our church paper in 1947 reprinted is a clear expression of the ideology of racism and of black inferiority. It is useful to remember the ideology that once ripped our country apart, an ideology that has not yet entirely disappeared.
When you read Stephens’ speech, note how he refers to the formation of the Southern Confederacy as a “revolution,” how he uses Jesus’ teaching about the house built on sand (Matthew 7:24-27) to describe the “old constitution,” how he claims the authority of both science and God’s design to assert negro racial inferiority, and how he concludes with a blasphemous appropriation of Jesus’ reference to himself as being the stone rejected by the builders but now made the chief cornerstone (Matthew 21:42): race-based slavery, he says, is the rejected stone that has become the cornerstone of the new Confederate nation.
Here is the Vice President of the new Confederacy speaking in 1861:
“As I have stated, the truth of this 'But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery, as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. . . .
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science…. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material – the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” – the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph….”
At https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/ , you can find the full text of Stephens’ speech.
-- Bill Edgar
Macroevolution: Mathematically Impossible
About once a year, a student would raise a hand in my high school calculus class. “Hey, Mr. Edgar, I hear you don’t believe in evolution. How come?” My short answer was, “A single cell is as complex as a Boeing 747, and cells reproduce themselves. Have you ever heard of an airplane accomplishing mitosis?”
A 2013 book by Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, argues that macroevolution is a mathematical impossibility. David Gelernter, professor of computer science at Yale University, reviewed Meyer’s book in Claremont Review of Books (May 1, 2019), and concluded that Meyer is correct. What we now know about how information stored in a creature’s DNA directs the construction of protein molecules disproves Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Protein molecules contain at least 150 amino acids, arranged like beads on a string in a precise order. There are twenty different amino acids to choose from for each bead. The resulting protein folds itself in complex ways that make Japanese Origami art look like merely folding a piece of paper in half. The folded protein fits neatly into the complex structure of a cell. Change a single amino acid in the protein and there is no protein. Change the folds and the protein doesn't work right.
Genetic mutations occur in DNA, but the proteins that the mutated DNA then tells how to build are almost always fatal. Helpful mutations are exceedingly rare, and those that are helpful make only minor adjustments in existing species of plants or animals near the end of an organism’s growth. The probability of a good mutation occurring near the beginning of building a creature, where it matters most for building a dog or a sheep, is functionally zero. Therefore, Darwin’s proposed process of “natural selection” never has good material to work on because sheep never give birth to puppies. (The very concept of “natural selection,” of course, is circular and therefore has always lacked real explanatory power. How does one know which organisms are most “fit?” The ones that survive and propagate! Which ones survive and propagate? The most “fit” ones!)
Gelernter is not happy to see Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species by natural selection go. The theory is simple and elegant, he thinks, but it turns out to be false so it must be rejected.
Three 19th Century writers long gave intellectual leaders an alternative to Christian thought: Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. Marx explained the dynamics of history based on class struggle determined by the “means of production.” He prophesied that history’s endpoint was close at hand when capitalism’s inherent contradictions would cause its collapse and the proletariat would take over in a permanent classless society. Unfortunately, every effort to attain Marx’s classless society has failed, and many millions have been butchered in the process of trying. Meanwhile, Marx’s economic history has been decisively refuted and his prophecies have failed. Marx’s class struggle between capitalists and proletariat has meanwhile been transmuted into ever new variants of oppressors and oppressed: imperialists oppress colonized; the patriarchy oppresses women; straights oppress
gays; white people oppress people of color; the one percent oppress everyone else; the sexual binary oppress the gender fluid, and so on. Real Marxist thought, which claimed to be scientific, survives only in corners of some universities and on the campaign trail with foolish and dangerous calls for socialism; but its mutated varieties continue to sprout in our universities, calling the angry and naïve to the barricades. Their proponents increasingly base their claims of oppression not on recognizable social scientific research but on the feelings of the oppressed – which must always be affirmed. But real Marxism, following the real Karl Marx, is dead.
While Marx tried to explain the economics and sociology of human history, Freud sought to plumb the depths of human psychology. Practicing psychologists and psychiatrists have now discarded his interesting, but always unverifiable, theories. Terms such as “neurotic,” “Freudian slip,” and “Oedipus complex” that he popularized, and which were common in my youth, have faded from use. At most, one talks politely nowadays about Freud’s “insights,” whatever these were.
Darwin explained human origins and the origin of species in general, and was even more important than Freud or Marx in providing an alternative to the Bible. Darwin claimed to explain the origins of life, and particularly of human life and its problems. Our intelligentsia has had to give up Marx and Freud. They can’t give up Darwin, or they will be faced with the stark possibility of God.
In his review of Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt Gelertner, however, concludes that Darwin’s evolution of species by natural selection is finished as a serious theory.
Look up his review at https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/. Then listen to a discussion about Darwin between Meyer, Gelertner, mathematician David Berlinski, and moderator Peter Robinson at https://evolutionnews.org/2019/07/abandoning-darwinism-gelernter-talks-with-meyer-berlinski/. Meyer and Robinson are Christians, the other two are not.
I once heard Frances Schaeffer, the American evangelist and writer of L’Abri fame, say that it was intellectually easier to be a Christian in 1970 than it was in 1910. It is even easier today in 2019 with not only Marx and Freud discredited but Darwin’s theory now shown to be impossible. Of course, the true impediment to Christian faith is the rebellion of the human heart against God that only the Holy Spirit can change.
-- Bill Edgar
Rules for Preaching
by Dr. Robert E. Speer
Reprint from Covenanter Witness, November 6, 1946, p. 289
In one of his lectures at the Princeton Institute of Theology last summer, Dr. Robert E. Speer so charmed his hearers with the following rules on preaching that many requested copies.
-
Preaching without emotion is not preaching, but beware of the cheap substitute. Synthetic emotion may impress simple souls, but it corrupts the preacher.
-
Remember Peniel and wrestle with the great themes, even if they throw you. Jacob was not Israel till he shrank a sinew.
-
Be loyal to your texts. Beware of context; if you leave it, be courteous and ask permission. Possibly the writer had bigger thoughts than your own.
-
There is always water if you bore deep enough.
-
Motorists and preachers should remember that the aim is not to cover the ground, but to see the country and seeing, love.
-
Illustrate, but don’t illustrate the obvious. One good illustration is worth ten bad.
-
The well is deep and you must have something to draw with, but there is no need to make people drink out of the bucket, still less to chew on the rope.
-
In preaching – no demand without the gift; no diagnosis without the cure, one word about sin, ten for the Saviour.
-
Irrelevance is sometimes an infirmity; usually it is a sin.
-
Emotion arises out of the truth. Emotionalism is poured onto it.
-
Listen before you speak. See before you say.
-
Aim at being independent of the Concordance, but do not disdain it when you are.
-
Love simple speech as much as you hate shallow thinking.
-
Polysyllables are not the sign of profundity. Often they are the cloak of poverty bought at a jumble sale.
-
Never talk down to your audience. They are not there.
-
Beware of the abstract noun. The abstract puffeth up, the concrete buildeth up.
-
By your consonants people will know what you say; by your vowels where you come from.
-
Be audible, but don’t shout. Clearness carries further, farther than clamour.
-
Be sparing of gestures, but do not be a post or a robot. If your hands can talk, let them; if not, give them a rest.
-
Be not like the brook, pause sometimes.
-
One cannot always finish, but one can always stop. If the flow ceases, do not dribble.
-
A preacher’s damnation: “He spoke of great things and made them small; of holy things and made them common; of God and made Him of no account.”
Thoughtful Questions I’ve Been Asked During the Past Month
1. What does Paul mean by “discernment?”
I don’t know what passage you have in mind. Context is critical. However, discernment means being able to tell the difference between true and false, important and unimportant, and friend and foe.
Important and unimportant: The Pharisees knew their Bibles and tried to obey God, but they failed to discern the difference between the more and less important. They tithed their vegetable gardens, but neglected “the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and mercy.” (Matthew 23:23) Fights over tertiary matters too often disturb the peace of the church. Once, the first thing two visitors at church wanted to ask me was my stand on the Federal Reserve fractional reserve banking system. I would not answer. The gold standard is not an important issue for the Church to address.
Friend and foe: Satan sometimes appears as an “angel of light.” (II Corinthians 11:14) He knows how to sound like a friend. Preachers who promise health and wealth if only you give to their ministry fit the bill. God tells us to “try the spirits whether they are from God,” and we need spiritual discernment to do that. Satan will look fair but feel foul, and the Spirit of Christ within us will alert us to his presence and danger.
True and false: With depressing frequency old heresies appear in new guises and often sweep even the elect away for a time. For example, when the whole pop psychology of “self esteem” (the “goodness” Pelagius taught everyone is born with) became suddenly popular, many Christians went for it. Otherwise sane preachers began teaching that the second of Jesus’ two great commandments contains two imperatives: love yourself (high self esteem) and then you can love others – as though Jesus could not count when he said the “second” great commandment is like the first. What Jesus knew, of course, is that even the most depressed and disappointed with themselves people nevertheless love themselves. We all love ourselves. But the “Gospel of self esteem” was so convincing for a time that some preachers imagined that Jesus taught it and until now we had just missed it.
Where does discernment come from? It is a gift of the Spirit given through the Scriptures, from rubbing shoulders with people of all sorts and paying attention, from family, church, and prayer, so that discerning the important, the friend, and the truth almost feels like common sense. The Book of Proverbs is a good place to start in developing discernment. An attitude of humility before God and neighbor is a prerequisite.
2. What does it mean to say one is “in Christ?”
When someone puts his faith in Christ, he is united to Christ. His sins are put on Christ who paid for them with his death on the cross, and God credits Christ’s life of obedience to the believer. He wears new white robes of Christ’s righteousness. Being in Christ fulfills the ancient Jewish rite of putting one’s hands on the head of the scapegoat on Israel’s annual Day of Atonement. The goat then bore Israel’s sins away into the wilderness, never to be seen again. (Leviticus 16:21-22)
Being “in Christ” means more than being justified. First, Christ gives his Spirit to everyone who is in him, making consciences alive to sin and ready to repent; which recognizes the same Spirit in other believers no matter their language or culture; which arouses a hunger for truth in the believer; which gives a believer courage in the face of adversity; which assures us that we are now sons of God; which means that even death cannot separate us from the love of God, so that we die in the sure hope of the Resurrection. Being “in Christ” therefore allows a believer to be cheerful in life, even in the face of death.
3. How did the Reformers deal with Roman Catholic claims about tradition?
The Reformers noted that if oral tradition were sufficient to maintain the truth, there would be no need for the Scriptures – but God gave us his Word in writing. The Pharisees had a similar teaching about tradition as the Roman Catholic Church did, that they possessed Moses’ oral teaching beyond the Scriptures. Jesus brushed their claims aside. He submitted only to “what is written,” and called the rest of Pharisaic teaching “traditions of men.” “Tradition” apart from the Scripture allows the introduction of all kinds of errors, some of which set aside Scripture itself, as Jesus pointed out. So the Reformers insisted that the Scriptures, and they alone, are the final authority for the Church’s faith and life. They also delighted in pointing out how often the ancient Church Fathers disagreed among themselves: there is not single “tradition” known to the “Fathers” that the Church can appeal to. Scripture alone is the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine.
-- Bill Edgar
Excerpt from “Christ our Eternal Judge”
By Samuel Boyle
Reprint from Covenanter Witness, November 5, 1942, p. 325
Under continued defeat and oppression with its unbearable tribulation many begin to doubt the existence of a Judge who cares. In anticipation of such a mood among His disciples Jesus once told a parable which is known as the Parable of the Unjust Judge. You will find it in Luke 18:1-8. The Master’s reason for telling this parable, Luke says, was that “men ought always to pray, and not to faint.” Let us examine this gem of Oriental humor and promise. Reading this parable of Jesus I find myself thinking of certain corrupt officials whom we dealt with in China. My interpretation may show a Chinese rather than a Syrian coloring.
This particular judge whom Jesus described was not only corrupt, but ill tempered as well. In the words of the tenth Psalm: “All his thoughts are, there is no God.” “As for all his adversaries, he puffeth at them…” Safely barricaded behind his unrighteous power this proud old rascal maintained a haughty indifference to the despised masses about him.
In the same town, Jesus said, lived a poor widow. Widows are usually poor in Oriental society. It is common tragedy for these helpless female dependents to be robbed of all they own by unscrupulous members of their own family and tribe. Evidently this woman was in the process of being thus exploited, for she had an “adversary,” a legal term implying a lawsuit. In her need she came to this unjust judge whom Jesus had just described.
The audacity of this widow’s approach is evident enough even to those of us who may have explored the machinations of lawyers and judges in American courts. What chance had she without money or powerful friends? Coming so unarmed as she did to the judge we are not surprised to see her contemptuously turned away. The widow came back again. Using, I suppose, that universal weapon of the “weaker vessel”, her tongue, she advertised far and wide the injustice of which she was a victim. She may have brought snickers of amusement to the soldiers around the judge as she screamed out boldly against his indifference. Neighbors would listen with grinning interest to her loud narrative of woe on her way home from the Court. It was becoming a major topic of gossip in the small town and the old judge was getting restless under the continued annoyance.
Jesus tells us to “hear what the unjust judge says,” so let us put our ear to the key hole as the old tyrant grumbles and mutters in exasperation; “Though I fear not God, nor regard men; yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her coming she weary me.” It is an exegetical question here whether or not the Greek word translated “weary” means literally what the original word means: “to black the eyes,” or “to bruise.” Our English Bible chose to take this in a metaphorical sense, as “to annoy or to weary one.” But to anybody who knows something of the possibilities of an aroused widow in Oriental lands, where woman has no social power but that which she can wield by violent scenes in public, the literal sense would not seem strange. I remember hearing of a scene near Lo Ting where a country magistrate tried to stop an idol festival in a village. The women were so furious at his interference that they surrounded him, beat him and even plucked out his sparse whiskers, hair by hair. It does not seem too much so far as I am concerned to have the judge say, “I will avenge her, lest at last she come and black my eyes.”
The point of Jesus’ parable is that weakness won over entrenched power through faith and persistence. If under such unjust circumstances her prayer won, how much more ought the Christian to believe in the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous!
“And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”
When Japan had captured Canton [Guangzhou] in October 1938, we missionaries west of the city feared that the Nipponese would march on into our field. Frail, plucky little Dr. Ida Scott said, “No! I am praying that God will stop them from coming west of Saam Shui [Sanshui, perhaps? -ed.].” We laughed a little, but joined her in that prayer. Over three years have passed since that time and the Japanese have never been able to get farther west than Saam Shui. Did God hear Dr. Scott’s importunate prayer?
Speaking Mexican on a Pennsylvania Farm
Working beside undocumented migrants from Mexico and other nations south of our border, I gradually learned about their attitudes and practices of courtship, marriage, and family life. I have been to a couple of their wedding receptions and quince años parties. Quince is the number 15, and años means years. Mexicans hold a party somewhat analogous to our idea of a “sweet sixteen” party or a debutante ball.
The fifteen-year coming-out functions that I attended were quite informative. The Quinceañera was dressed colorfully, like a princess. Yet she also moved from table to table making sure that her guests were well provided with food and drink, and enjoying themselves. Strong muchachos (young men) who kept up a tough image at work in the packing shed were busy acting as waiters.
The whole event is paid for by an interesting system of patronage. On the one hand, the girl’s father would be showing off his status by throwing an expensive fiesta. It is debated to what extent the quince años descends from Aztec and Mayan rituals, or is a practice borrowed from France in the 19th century. But it is clearly an event for a wealthy “princess;” everyone goes to the party, but the peasant girl, which is to say most Mexican girls, doesn’t have one.
On the other hand, many close friends and family members chip in to provide the necessities. Some cousins pool their money to buy sodas; others purchase the meat. Aunts might do the cooking, while uncles help pay for the dance band or the rental of the public hall. These people are called patrons, which Mexicans translate as “God-relatives.” It was a nice surprise to be waited on politely by the toughest guys in the shed. I would not want to judge Mexican family or village life based on the behavior of a mob of bachelors far from home.
It was also a reminder that we humans can be personas as well as personalities. Often we behave one way at work, another with our families, etc. The Mexican girls can exude a worldly and overly flirty persona; yet when you get to know them, they turn out to be quite innocent and idealistic. This innocence can make them prey for the lady’s man, or mujeriego, who will say almost anything to trick a girl. More than once I witnessed one of the boys telling a girl that she is everything to him, and he can picture her with him for the rest of their lives - only to have him turn to me after she walked away to share proudly that he was leaving for Mexico soon, where his bride was waiting. He just wanted to fornicate with that girl first.
To be sure, Mexican boys are as macho as is generally thought. If someone makes fun of a Mexican lad’s appearance, he will say los hombres deben ser feos - men are supposed to be ugly. The ugliness can show up with a vengeance at parties and dances in our country, where migrant boys outnumber the girls by a large margin. With no dance partner available, the guys will drink too much and start fights over such trivialities as which tiny hamlet they call home. They dance to Duranguense music (named after the State of Durango) which sounds like the polka. The accordion instead of the tuba provides the oom-pah rhythm. The lyrics are like gangster rap: when they are not glorifying los narcotraficantes (drug smugglers), they are singing stories that either idolize females, or reduce courtship to a shallow game. A hit song a few years ago had the title Yo Te Engaño Con Otra, “I am deceiving you with another.”
The girl who is wise enough to refuse to play the game is much better off. Perhaps she learned the rhyming proverb when she was young that la suerte de la fea - la bonita la desea. In blunt English: “the luck of the ugly woman is coveted by the pretty one!” While the boys fawn over the attractive girls at every village dance, Plain Jane is stuck at home helping her mother and actually learns the domestic arts. When it comes to proposing marriage, most muchachos forget the coquetas and vie for the useful, literally “homely,” bride.
The American man needs to watch out for the cazafortuna - we say gold-digger, but in Mexican she is literally a “fortune hunter.” Mexican girls will ask openly which guy in the workplace makes the most money, and even offer to marry a Gringo if he will give her U.S. citizenship papers. Such a blunt approach is likely to scare the American man away. But the myth, only half believed, does persist among our undocumented migrants that an American husband can just give them papers.
In Mexico there is a phenomenon called rapto, or seizing. Think of our word “raptor” for a bird of prey. If you like a girl, just take her. After she has spent the night with you, show up at her father’s house with a case of beer, and you will be welcomed as a son-in-law. Mexican law enforcement can be confused whether to prosecute rapto as rape or just look the other way. The bride is often more or less willing to be kidnapped. A similar practice is traditional in some Central Asian republics, and authorities can be similarly confounded by the tension between old ways and modern sensibilities.
There was one case of unwanted rapto among my coworkers. Under the influence of alcohol, one of the girls gave in to a boy who was crazy about her. Her family and friends expected her to live with him. Significantly, the new common-law groom was a nephew of the coyote, so her job could have been on the line if she left him. But she didn’t want him, so she treated him poorly - sat with other guys in the break room, flirted with all the other fellows, made it known that he did all the housework. Eventually, he let her go. Sadly, she became the bonita girl in the proverb with the “unlucky” destiny. Last I heard, she was back in her father’s house in rural Michoacan, a single mother of several children, abandoned by the fathers.
When village Mexicans do marry, it is often a common-law arrangement. The verb for “to wed” is casar, directly from the noun casa meaning house. Casada (housemate), esposa (wife), and marida (married woman) are used interchangeably. If I wanted to find out if a shacked- up couple were legally married, I would have to ask specific questions. Did you say vows in front of a priest? Were papers signed for the government? Would you need a divorce to break up? In my experience, most of their marriages were unofficial and temporary. I would guess, however, that in Mexico the marriages and families are probably more stable.
While the Mexican dad is up here working for several years at a time, there is sometimes a sancho, or temporary boyfriend, who moves into his home. Several of my coworkers told me that they know who their sancho is, and one even told me, with a shrug of resignation, that he was glad the fellow was taking care of his house for now. When the migrant dad returns home, the sancho has vacated, while the dad returns home feeling guilty, a virtual stranger to his children. One year a Mexican remarked about the yearly fair in my town, and asked how much I spent on my children there. When I told him about 80 dollars, he was shocked. He spent 500 dollars per child the last time he was home. Absent fathers who think money can replace time with their children are, sadly, not unique to the United States.
Another fruit of family separations is a functional matriarchy that sees dad as extraneous. One of the muchachas in the shed was almost fired because she slapped another lady. At the time, I was her manager, so I tried to talk to her. She was a good worker; we didn’t want to lose her. Why would she be physically aggressive to a coworker? She told me that the girl had called her sister a vulgar name, and one has to fight for one’s family. She was clear that familia included her mother and her siblings, but not her father or live-in boyfriend. When men come and go, they become less important; but the family suffers.
Mexican village life, as seen through the lens of undocumented immigrants – mostly but not only single men – in the fields of Pennsylvania’s farms, reveals a pattern of family life different than the American norm. The extended family plays a larger role, but the marriage bond is weak. Young girls especially are vulnerable. Evangelists sharing the Gospel with these immigrants need to have a message for the family that will make it a place of safety and joy where God is honored.
-- Scott Rocca
Help Support Geneva's New Bible Professor
Geneva College has appointed Rev. Rutledge Etheridge to a full-time faculty post as Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies beginning this fall, for the 2019-20 academic year and beyond. Rev. Etheridge, who will begin immediately to pursue a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, is moving into this new role having served the College faithfully as Chaplain. The College does not have the funds in hand to cover the costs of his new position, but we have proceeded to make this transition with Rev. Etheridge from Chaplain to full-time faculty member in Biblical Studies for a number of reasons:
1. Commitment to Biblical & Confessional Christian Orthodoxy.
Our enduring institutional commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures depends directly upon the Biblical and confessional orthodoxy of our Biblical Studies faculty. With faithful faculty members approaching retirement, we need to take steps to secure the future.
2. Faithfulness to Leadership.
The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) anchors Geneva College’s confessional commitments to the Westminster Confession of Faith and RPCNA Testimony, as reflected in the College Charter and Bylaws. Our bylaws direct that Bible faculty should be members of the RP church. We have appointed Rev. Etheridge to honor this leadership directive.
3. Confidence in Rev. Etheridge’s Call to our Ministry of Education.
The appointment confirms Rev. Etheridge’s call to service in Biblical Studies at Geneva. Since coming to the College, Rev. Etheridge has established a solid record of classroom performance. His love for teaching and the quality of his work with our students has produced many discipleship and pastoral counseling opportunities beyond the classroom—a mark of excellence in Biblical Studies instruction at Geneva.
We trust that you will consider partnering with us in faith to make this appointment viable financially. Our goal is to raise $85,000 per year for three years (total: $255,000.00). We need your help to support Rev. Etheridge as he moves into this full-time faculty position and pursues a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies that will equip him for what we trust will be a long term of service at Geneva College.
Donations can be given online at https://www.geneva.edu/give/bible-faculty-fund, or by mailing a check, designated, "Biblical Faculty Fund" to the Geneva College development office.
If you would like to participate in the Atlantic Presbytery matching opportunity, please email jetikasan@gmail.com and let David and Bonnie Weir know of your gift to Geneva College. They have committed to match contributions from individuals or congregations in the Atlantic Presbytery up to $3000 per year for the next three years.
-- Bonnie Weir
Home Life in Syria
By Evangeline Metheny
Reprint from Covenanter Witness, August 26, 1936
This evening I had a new experience. Dikranuhi had taken me for a ride, and we met one of the little herd boys. He told us that one of Dikranuhi’s nanny goats, who was still at pasture with an old herd, had a new-born kid. It was quite cold so we decided to meet the herd and get the little thing and bring it home. Sure enough we saw him coming with one tiny kid in his arm, and another one poking its nose out of his coat. The one in his coat belonged to one of his own goats, and the one in his arms to Dikranuhi’s goat. She took off her jacket and gave it to me. I told the herd boy to give me the kid, and he did, and I wrapped it up nicely and took it in my arms. It was bleating and bleating; but it evidently liked the warmth of the coat and my arms, for it stopped very soon after I took it. It was quite a bit of a ride to Dikranuhi’s father’s house where she keeps her goats. It was a nice picture, I am sure: Dikranuhi leading Dandy, I perched up there on the pack-saddle with a new born goat in my arms. As we drew near her father’s I gave the shrill joy-trill that the women give at weddings and other rejoicings, and D’s sisters-in-law came to see what it was about.
The two sister-in-law congratulated Dikranuhi, for all of her nannies have kids this spring, and all the kids are nannies. Her less fortunate friends whose goats have produced billies this season comfort themselves by saying that she will have heavier taxes to pay than they.
D’s elder sister-in-law, Victoria, is keeping all the newborn kids of her goats and D’s in her room. It is a nice, big, upstairs room; but it is not too big for a living room and kitchen and bedroom all combined – oh! And a reception room as well – for a father and mother and six children. It really does not seem as if they need seven little black kids to keep them company. I went over last week to see the first two kids. One was a day old, and the other nearly two. They were both in a little box, so deep that they were quite hidden in it. Just the same they had to keep it covered with a board because the little rascals were trying to jump out.
I had just come in from a ride that morning. We had taken saddle bags and a basket along, and D. had gathered the budding and flowering tips of arbutus-tree branches to make green fodder for the mother goats, as pasture is very scanty at this season, and as the weather is often so wet as to keep the beasts from getting out to pasture. She had also gathered heaps of dry pine needles and fresh, green new branches of myrtle to make litter for the kids to lie on. I rode home on quite a load of stuff, and D. carried some unstrapped branches.
While I was looking at the kids D. came in with a larger box and put it down near the big fireplace near the box. She had plenty of pine needles and myrtle branches in it and she lifted her kid out of the little box into its own new one. But when Victoria’s kid felt itself deprived of the warmth and softness of the other kid beside it the little fellow set up such a bleating that he had to be put in with his companion.
Every ride I take these days I see some herder, old or young, carrying a new-born kid home. Twice little boys have come bringing D. hers and asking for the usual tip. I find myself thinking of the weather in relation to them; whether the cold or wet will be bad for them, or the sunshine good for them.
I was in a neighbor’s house lately where a newborn calf was sharing the living-room upstairs with the family. They had made a sort of pen of their sticks of furniture. They were rejoicing because it is a heifer. They are very poor, and have a lot of hungry children, so the prospect of another milk-cow is very heartening to them. One nice thing in this village is that everyone has a good big fireplace and plenty of firing; so no matter how cold and wet they get while they are out at work, they can always get warm and dry. And these cheerful open fires are good for the calves and lambs until they are big enough to look after themselves a little and until the winter cold is past.
Authors in this Issue
Samuel Boyle was an RP missionary to China until 1949.
Bill Edgar is a retired pastor of Broomall RPC (Philadelphia).
John Edgar is the pastor of Elkins Park RPC (Philadelphia).
Lisa Edgar is a member of Broomall RPC.
Evangeline Metheny was a former member of Second Philadelphia and missionary; see her biography in the 2.1 issue of A Little Strength.
Scott Rocca is a member of Hazleton RPC.
Robert E. Speer (1867-1947) was an influential figure in mainline Presbyterian circles during the first half of the 20th Century. More can be found about him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Elliott_Speer.
Bonnie Weir is a member of the Board of Corporators of Geneva College from Atlantic Presbytery.