# Presbyterianism's assessment of Robert Speer



## Pergamum (May 5, 2009)

Robert Speer was a Presbyterian missions statesmen who lived in a hard time, during the time the Liberal-Fundementalist Controversy exploded. 

He tried to moderate between the liberals and fundamentalists. He disagreed with most of the liberals but didn't do a lot to stop them. He signed the Auburn Affirmation too.

What is Presbyterianism's assessment of him now after many years? I can probably guess the OPC's assessment of him, but how does the PCA and other branches of Presbytrerianism view him?

Also, what happened to Machen? It seems he was pushed out of his role as president over the new mission board and further splits occurred almost immediately over alcohol and eschatology (premil)? How does the PCUSA and PCA view Machen? Do they respect him or view him as schismatic or a trouble-maker?



Finally,


How did this all affect Presbyterian missions for the good and the bad? Did it help the church purge unsound missionaries? Did it hinder mission action? What were the results of this controversy?


----------



## Wayne (Jun 4, 2009)

Pergamum:

Seeing as you didn't get a reply when this posted back on 5 May, let me attempt something of an answer.

Presbyterianism of course isn't monolithic, and among those in the PC(USA) today, I would guess that those who even know of Speer would also think highly of him. For instance, see Piper, John F., Jr., Robert E. Speer: Prophet of the American Church (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2000), 538 pp.

On the other hand, amongst the OPC, PCA and other conservative Presbyterian denominations, Speer would be looked at as a fellow-traveler with the modernists of the early 20th century. He was generally considered an evangelical but like Charles Erdman, chose a path of acquiescence to modernist demands. 

As modernism increasingly found its way into PCUSA missions, conservatives sought to fight it, and they finally decided their only recourse was to set up an Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. Machen helped to set up the IBPFM, and for this he and a dozen or so others were drummed out of the PCUSA. The IBPFM is still around today and has a web site, if you want to know more about them.

The bottom line is that modernism has no Gospel to preach, and so ultimately sees little need for missions. It all becomes social work, and so the PC(USA) today fields about 300 missionaries [cf. ]The Layman Online, while the PCA has over 600 in the field, along with several thousand on short-term assignment. I don't know the numbers for the OPC, ARP and EPC off-hand, but would guess that, based on the PCA per capita of 1 for ever 566 members, that those latter three might themselves be fielding another 250 missionaries, combined. The PC(USA) per capita would work out to 1 missionary for ever 6,666 congregants.

So a ten-fold increase among conservative Presbyterians, when compared to PC(USA) efforts. In the 1930s, because Machen and others lost their battle in the PCUSA, modernist missionaries were able to stay in the field. But as conservatives re-grouped, new missionaries went out, and in the years since, the OPC, PCA and others have sent thousands out with the Gospel. All in all, the work of missions prospered, despite the set-backs.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 4, 2009)

Thanks for the answer.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 4, 2009)

One place to research this is Brad Longfield's book. 

Bradley J. Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists and Moderates (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).

More info here:

Westminster Seminary California clark

See also Darryl Hart's bio of Machen for a slightly different view. 

D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America (P & R Publishing, 2003).

See also:

Edwin H. Rian, The Presbyterian Conflict (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940).

Speer was not a friend of the orthodox nor, ultimately, was he a friend of the mission of the church. In many ways he was paradigmatic of the latitudinarian evangelicalism of our age.


----------



## Edward (Jun 4, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Also, what happened to Machen? It seems he was pushed out of his role as president over the new mission board and further splits occurred almost immediately over alcohol and eschatology (premil)? How does the PCUSA and PCA view Machen? Do they respect him or view him as schismatic or a trouble-maker?



Machen is, I believe, held in high regard in the PCA - or at least the conservative end of it.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 4, 2009)

Looking through old issues of Christianity Today (the original series, 1930-39), Speer isn't really discussed until 1933. Seems like he wasn't on the radar until the whole Independent Board matter began to come to the fore, at least judging from coverage in that paper. There appears to have been a debate between Machen and Speer that was scheduled for March or April of 1933. Then in the May 1933 issue of CT, Machen published a review of Speer's latest book, The Finality of Jesus. I'm thinking of posting the latter article to my blog soon.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 5, 2009)

Not content to leave well enough alone, here are some items from 1933:

First, coverage of a debate between Machen and Speer:
Primary Sources: Machen-Speer Debate on Modernism (1933) The Continuing Story

and Machen's review of a book by Speer (Speer was a very prolific author, so there is a bit of humor perhaps intended in the title "Speer's latest book"):

Primary Sources: Machen’s Review of Speer’s Book (1933) The Continuing Story

With that I'll leave it be, unless you have questions.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jun 5, 2009)

Thanks Wayne!


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 6, 2009)

Why in the world didn't they kick out Pearl S Buck? What reasons where given for this failure? Why did Speer defend Buck when Speer seemed to deny most of the tenets of Modernism?


----------



## Wayne (Jun 6, 2009)

Pergamum:

A partial answer can again be found on the pages of Christianity Today (original series) back in 1933. See Two articles about Pearl S. Buck (1933 and 1936) The Continuing Story [note the brief news item from 1936, attached at the end.] Not a full answer to your questions, but a start. Thanks for the good questions.


----------

