|
The Strong Case
and the Development of Evangelical Thought in the PCA
“Men should be
more outspoken”
The second half of the 19th
Century was the age of Down Grade controversies and battles between modernism
and liberalism. This was the case in mainline Reformed and Presbyterian
churches all over the world, but especially in some of the British
colonies. Perhaps the outcome in the latter was slightly more encouraging
from an evangelical perspective, than in Europe and the British isles.
In the Dutch-Reformed established
church of the Cape Colony, the Scottish and Dutch ministers led by moderator
Andrew Murray successfully opposed liberal teachings that questioned the
authority of Scripture and Jesus’ Divinity. This happened despite the
popular support for liberal teaching in Cape Town in particular, evidenced by
the eventual establishment of the Free Protestant Church of the Rev DP Faure.
Further East, the colonial church
in Victoria would experience a similar struggle that revolved around the person
and ideas of the Rev Charles Strong (1844-1942) and one of his supporters, the
law agent of the church and later mayor of Melbourne, Mr JC Stewart. For
reasons that would seem obvious it is referred to as “the Strong Case”.
Prelude
The grumblings started around
1877, indicated by an anonymous pamphlet that seemed to aim at Strong as
obvious target. It chastised those who denied the supernatural and evaded core
teachings of the historic Christian faith. The following year
several conservative ministers became concerned over Strong’s articles in the Presbyterian
Review of 1878 and 79.
Strong had come to Melbourne from
the liberal wing of the Church of Scotland only a few years before (in 1875),
to fill the vacancy at Scots Church after the sudden death of its former
minister the Rev PS Menzies in 1874. Menzies had been a very popular
preacher and drew large crowds. His liberalism was profound, but probably still
left him with some core beliefs about Christ’s divinity and atonement for sin.
If not, he just continued to use the same old words with his opponents being
none the wiser for it. This would become different with his
successor. Strong believed in some Supreme Being and he had a religious
message. But the fact that he was offered a Unitarian pulpit in England
before he accepted the invitation Down Under tells us much about his friends,
if not about the man himself. He arrived in Scots Church after earlier
theological studies at Glasgow University, which taught him more about
Hegelianism than Calvinism. Like many ministers at the time he continued
to use the traditional language, but rejected the deity of Christ and his
sacrificial atonement.
To the credit of the liberal supporters and friends in
Melbourne it must be said that they paid their minister handsomely, whilst many
an evangelical congregation left its minister and his family, if not starving
than perhaps not well cared for. Orthodoxy in doctrine and exercising
neighbourly responsibility if not integrity towards one’s pastor do not always
go hand in hand. There may well have been an element of envy in the
opposition against Strong, especially as his was a large and influential
congregation, and its building was also the first Presbyterian church of
Victoria. That Strong was only in his early thirties when receiving much
more money, influence and appreciation than most, and particularly: than the
older ministers in the presbytery, would not have contributed much to combat
possible jealousy in opposing quarters. It might be coincidence or a mere
matter of maturity and commitment, that three of Strong’s main opponents were
considerably older men and that the only younger one would show enough
motivation in his own right by acquiring the nickname “fighting
Larry”. It just might, but on the other hand, it would not be
entirely unlikely that ulterior motives were mixed with the spiritual. If
their own common sense did not alert these ministers to some of the obvious in
the situation, it is quite likely that their wives did so at some stage.
Whether this resulted in sin, or not, eternity will tell, but to fully
appreciate the situation one should not isolate a doctrinal debate from its
church historical setting.
The Atonement Case
The murmurings became official
concern from December 1880, when an article from the Victorian Review (October
1880) was brought to the attention of the Presbytery of Melbourne. It was
written by Strong on the doctrine of the atonement and looked for a higher
reality of reconciliation between God and men than the historic documents of
the New Testament seemed to teach. Four months later the Presbytery
appointed a committee to look into the matter. Their report led to a
motion at Presbytery in April of the same year, basically telling us that Mr Strong
had been very telling in what he did not teach on the subject: the Son of God
coming to earth, the atoning life and death, and resurrection and ascension of
the Lord Jesus.
“The Presbytery having considered
the paper on the Atonement, published in the Victorian Review for 1880 and
signed Charles Strong, and having also considered the Committee’s report on the
same, express their sincere concern and pain at the negative character of the
teaching in Mr Strong’s paper, the absence from it of all direct mention of the
Divine person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Mediator, and Reconciler, working
out the Atonement, as well as the omission of all reference to the
supernaturally given revelation: and takes hold of, certain objective
supernatural historic facts, especially the incarnation, the atoning life and
death and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, the Presbytery earnestly,
and in a spirit of brotherly kindness, urge upon Mr Strong that, in his future
utterances, he make the essential facts prominent.”
(Minutes of Presbytery, 26 April
1881)
Whether this was a decision that
required Strong to change his preaching (as Rowland Ward supposes, The Bush
still burns, 255,256 and 260: “a directive of the Presbytery to give emphasis
to the basic doctrines of redemption”), or not, would be open to debate.
It may have had this effect or intent. But even if so, it could very well
be argued that this direction was not the proper church-orderly instrument to
make recommendations considering the Rev C Strong’s preaching and pastoral
affairs at Scots Church. The motion considers “the paper on the Atonement” and
“the Committee’s report on the same”; not Strong’s preaching in general or on
the subject of the atonement in particular. Polity wise it would have unfortunate
consequences if one would be allowed to take decisions of the courts of the
church as binding beyond the matter they actually consider. The wording of the
motion about “future utterances” should rather be taken to refer to future
papers by Mr Strong on the matter of the atonement. This was what the
presbytery investigated and gave its judgement on.
Nonetheless, the motion may well
have been instrumental in turning on the heat of the public debate that
certainly followed in the newspapers and at the coffee tables. It is also
a fact of history that Strong experienced so much pressure within the church
that it was no longer possible for him to serve her freely and with good
conscience. In other words: his broader church environment pressured him
to make statements about Christ’s divinity and the reconciliation of God to
repentant Mankind that he could not endorse. One public article affirming
the creeds of the church on the subject might have been enough to leave his
lack of positive preaching on the subject undisturbed. But this paper or
letter to the editor never came. As a reasonably honest man he was willing to
avoid, but could not positively state what he could not support in good
conscience. Consequently, pressure increased and by August 1881 Strong
felt his position in the church had become impossible.
A botched heresy trial
At a congregational meeting he
indicated his wish to resign. Eventually Strong agreed to a six month’s leave
of absence and to return for at least another year after that. He left
Victoria in March the following year and returned in October 1882, only to get
into trouble on the issue of Sunday observance along Westminster lines.
He supported the opening of the Public Library and Art Gallery on the Lord’s
Day, not adhering to a presbytery decision on Sabbath observance. The
Presbytery expressed its “deep regret” in February 1883.
His final troubles would be
invited in his role as chairman of the Scots Church Literary Association.
An Anglican layman, Mr Justice Higginbotham, delivered a lecture on science and
religion in August 1883 that denied the Trinity. Strong failed to oppose or
condemn these views and the following month a formal charge against Strong was
taken up at Presbytery. But, as is unfortunately not exceptional in the
history of the Church: while pursuing conviction the court would fail to adhere
to its own proper procedures and rules of natural justice. No formal statement
of charges was drawn up and served on Strong in the approved manner. Furthermore,
there may have been sufficient evidence to prove him guilty of sins of neglect,
but a positive conviction of heresy on core doctrines of historic Christianity
was not presented. In September 1883 the Melbourne Presbytery was acting
on a suspicion that, though probably fully warranted, was not proven.
In this situation the Rev C Strong
submitted his resignation of the charge of Scots Church. The matter as
referred to the Victorian Assembly in November of the same year, while Strong
was already booked to leave for England. As the presbytery had messed up
in procedure and not carried out investigation that led to positive evidence of
heresy on the subjects, the Assembly could not really take the matter up or any
further. In the end, what it did was to invite Strong to attend the
meeting and “disavow all complicity with the erroneous doctrines of Mr Justice
Higginbotham’s lecture and also to declare his faith in the true deity of the
Lord Jesus Christ, the propitiatory character of his death and the real
resurrection of his body from the dead.”
Resignation
Although the Assembly’s request
seemed a reasonable one in the circumstances, Strong was probably right in
claiming that it was unconstitutional. It had not come to the higher court in
the proper way and he advised the Assembly to that effect. Strong did not need
the support of the broader church anyway. Never needed it: he had not
come to Victoria because of special affinity with Presbyterianism and its
Westminster doctrines, but because a liberal congregation of like minded people
wanted him badly. Now that he had to leave, he naturally preferred the
company of appreciative friends to those who tried to serve him an official
last minute conviction before he said goodbye in a situation where he had
resigned for good church-orderly reason. He had tried to play by the rules, but
in his eyes his adversaries had failed to do so. While Assembly met,
Strong was at a farewell in the Town Hall with over two thousand of Melbourne’s
leading citizens. The 185 casting their vote and calling on him to appear and
please explain must have felt minor sideline stuff compared to the grand party
in the civic centre. As far as Strong was concerned he had already
resigned and was going anyway. Why seek anymore difficulty?
Evaluation
Whether Strong was the liberal
gentleman who did his utmost to avoid conflict with conservatives, endeavouring
to serve within the letter of the doctrine of the church, while obviously doing
his own liberal thing at Scots, or not, would be hard to answer because of the
complexity of the situation. In his public views he certainly acted against the
spirit of the subordinate standard (Westminster Confession 21, especially sub 7
and 8 on the Lord’s Day). A literal society at Scots Church would be taking
place under the responsibility of the minister of the charge, and Mr
Higginbotham’s heresies were ventilated without disagreement.
When Mr Stewart spoke against the
Westminster Confession, ridiculing church doctrines on creation and election at
a Scots Church congregational meeting where Strong was present, this he caused
a great sensation in church circles. Strong did not condemn, but rather
encouraged than disagreed: “If one thing was to be more desired in the church
it was that men should be more outspoken.”
It was not without justification
that the Rev JL Rentoul so ably responded: “I applauded that statement, though
I marvelled at hearing it fall from the lips of Mr Strong. Is it only on
such questions as ‘creation days’ and ‘predestination’ that it is good for men
to be outspoken? Should they not be courageously outspoken also when
asked frankly to say what their real opinions are regarding the person and
redeeming work of our Lord Jesus Christ, regarding his resurrection from the dead?”
(Argus, September 9, 1881)
Of course clauses of right of
private judgement could be applied and some freedom of exegesis pleaded, but in
the end it was clear to all concerned that the minister at Scots’ and his
congregation were not living up to core doctrines of their Presbyterian
confession.
Aftermath
The Rev Douglas Robertson,
Strong’s present successor at Scots Church, tells that the episode of the
Strong-ministry, or rather the unfortunate termination, had disastrous
consequences for the church records. When Strong left, he emptied the
archives and took everything with him. For this reason valuable files on
this period are lost. At the time this must already have indicated that
Melbourne would hear from Strong again. He had further plans for city and
would eventually establish his own congregation outside the Presbyterian Church
of Victoria (1885), after attempts to remove the congregation and its property
from the denomination failed in November 1884.
The Strong case would have a lasting
influence on the Presbyterian Church and its doctrinal commitments in Victoria
and beyond. It is interesting to see how it actually reinforced core
teachings of historic Christianity and assisted the church to anchor them in a
church orderly manner. In 1881 the Presbytery took “hold of, certain
objective supernatural historic facts, especially the incarnation, the atoning
life and death and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord.” It also urged:
“upon Mr Strong that, in his future utterances, he make the essential facts
prominent.”
Twenty years later, in 1901,
phrases from the anti-Strong motion would be used to word part of the Scheme of
Union of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. The first part of the
Declaratory Statement to the basis of union reads:
“That in regard to the doctrine of
redemption as taught in the subordinate standard, and in consistency therewith,
the love of God to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for
the sins of the whole world, and the free offer of salvation to men without
distinction on the ground of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice, are regarded by
this church as vital to the Christian faith. And inasmuch as the Christian
faith rests upon, and the Christian consciousness takes hold of certain objective
supernatural historic facts, especially the incarnation, the atoning life and
death, and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and His bestowment of
His Holy Spirit, this Church regards those whom it admits to the office of the
holy ministry as pledged to give a chief place in their teaching to these
cardinal facts, and to the message of redemption and reconciliation implied and
manifested in them.”
If
one compares the two documents the first seems to be a concise summary of the
second. Both their doctrine and emphasis tends to be the same. But one
should always realise this is in hindsight and through the eyes of the
victorious party. It certainly was the direction the Victorian Presbytery
wanted the church to take in 1881 and in tune with the general feeling of the
Presbyterian Church at the time. But it would not be hard to argue that
what initially was, church polity wise, a direction in a specific matter under
consideration in 1881, had become an integral policy by 1901: for a broader
application to prevent cases similar to Strong’s altogether. Strong never
signed the Declaratory Statement, nor was the direction of Presbytery
necessarily the same, so it would be unjust to evaluate his behaviour in a
polity context that would only emerge later on.
Appendix: Stewart
Almost
as an appendix to the Strong-case, the name of
Mr JC Stewart should be mentioned. Almost: because he is too important to leave
out of consideration on the subject altogether. There is a personal link
as a “Strong”-supporter, a double meaning, which may or even should be read
with and without capital. It was the treatment of Strong by the
Presbytery of Melbourne that triggered Stewart’s public contempt for the
Confession of the church in 1881. It was an outdated document with
unacceptable teachings on literal creation days and absurd teachings about
double predestination, election and damnation. As an elder and law agent for
the church this was asking for trouble. He had been far less careful in stating
his views than Strong. Perhaps Stewart thought that enough was enough,
the cat and mouse play should stop, and that it was time to address the issues
in a less temperate manner. Strong was vulnerable as minister, but
Stewart, who himself was not dependent on the church for his living, should
force the issues and take some of the lightning.
His thunder was followed by fire
bolts all right. The Melbourne Presbytery struck with a censure (vote 18
to eight). Stewart was also suspended from his seat in the Presbytery.
But again, as with Strong: 1881 was not 1901. Official firm evangelical
commitment was only developing and finding its way as it was being confronted
with liberal thought on core doctrines. Without any obvious repentance or
change of views on Stewart’s part or public “sorry” for his misrepresentations
of the confession, the suspension was lifted by the brethren. The church
was not sure and trying to find its way through the issues. By this time
liberalism realised its incompatibility with evangelicalism better than the
church itself. The suspension was lifted, but Stewart had already
resigned his connection with the Presbyterian Church in Victoria.
The Stewart-case resounds
especially in the second clause of the Declaratory Statement:
“That
the doctrine of God’s eternal decree, including the doctrine of election to
eternal life, is held as defined in the Confession of Faith, chap. III, sect.
I, where it is expressly stated that according to this doctrine, “neither is
God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor
is the liberty or contingency
of
second causes taken away, but rather established”, and further, that the said
doctrine is held in connection and harmony with the truth—that God is not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, that He
has provided a salvation sufficient for all, and adapted to all, and offered to
all in the Gospel, and that every hearer of the Gospel is responsible for his
dealing with the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.”
“That
men should be more outspoken,” this had been Strong’s wish for the Presbyterian
Church.
Ir
was
granted.