Fifty Years of Faithfulness: The Witness of The Outlook

Fifty years ago The Outlook—originally called Torch and Trumpet—published its first issue. The lead editorial, simply entitled “Why?”, set forth the aims of the publishers and editors. The magazine would present a Reformed voice on doctrine and life, written primarily for the laity, but with some articles for ministers. It would be primarily positive in its presentation of the faith, but would occasionally discuss controversial matters. One key goal was to help Reformed people recognize and avoid the errors of the time: liberalism, neo-orthodoxy and fundamentalism. The early writers represented both learned and influential leaders of the time as well as some young writers of promise. To name just a few authors from the earliest issues: Leonard Greenway, William Hendriksen, Edward Heerema, Alexander De Jong, Peter Y. De Jong, Henry R. Van Til, Johannes G. Vos, Cornelius Van Til, John Piersma, John Murray, O.T. Allis, W. Stanford Reid, E.J. Young, R.B. Kuiper, H. Evan Runner, Park Yune Sun, H.J. Kuiper, Martin Monsma, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes and Edwin Palmer. The conservative Reformed world was well represented. The magazine was very much the result of the work of Christian Reformed people, but the range of topics in that first issue demonstrated that desire to speak broadly to the needs of the Reformed community. The articles included a devotional meditation as well as doctrinal studies on the authority of Scripture (contra liberalism and neo-orthodoxy), the covenant and the Belgic Confession. More ecclesiastical and cultural topics included science and the Bible, pastoral counseling, apologetics and Christian education.

Torch and Trumpet was serious about presenting the positive case for Reformed Christianity. Throughout the last fifty years the majority of articles that appeared in almost every issue were positive in encouraging confessional Calvinism. That fact has often been forgotten by critics as well as defenders of the magazine. Controversy was not its first concern or dominant characteristic. No doubt many who read the magazine looked for the timely pieces about issues before the church, but many other kinds of writing were the heart of the magazine.



Surveying the work of a magazine over fifty years requires some particular focus to illumine the character of that work. Three themes help show what the magazine was about: Evolution and the Bible, Concern for the CRC, and Involvement in the CRC.

Evolution and the Bible

That opening editorial in the first issue expressed its concern for the threat posed to the church by “that strange mixture of truth and error commonly called Fundamentalism.” While that concern was addressed in a variety of ways (e.g., Rev. Jelle Tuininga in 1986 wrote of the inroads of revivalistic hymns in the churches), the prime issue addressed over the years was evolution. The articles on evolution, of course, dealt with many issues beyond fundamentalism: exegesis, hermeneutics, the authority of the Bible and the character of sdence. But the discussions of evolution serve as a measure of the response to fundamentalism as a danger in the churches.

From the beginning the magazine took a strong and clear stand against the idea of an evolutionary origin for man. Repeatedly over the years articles appeared presenting the biblical case for the direct creation of man by God. Also many articles appeared insisting on the historical character of the early chapters of Genesis. In fact three series of Bible studies on Genesis 1–11 were published over the years, one by Dr. P.Y. De Jong beginning in 1971, one by Rev. Henry Vander Kam beginning 1979 and another by Rev. Mark Vander Hart beginning in 1998.

While the evolution of man and the historicity of Genesis were defended with a single voice, on other issues a variety of views were presented. The age of the earth, the extent of the flood, and the days of creation were issues on which a variety of orthodox views were noted. No narrow fundamentalism filled the pages of the magazine, but a responsible recognition of the various views held by orthodox Reformed theologians.

That commitment was clear in the first issue of the Torch and Trumpet. That issue contained an article by Dr. John De Vries who had served as professor of chemistry at Calvin College since 1939, and who also was a trustee of the Reformed Fellowship in the early years of the magazine. In that article on science he defended the notion of an old earth: “One need not go very far back into history to reach the period when men universally believed that our earth was only about six thousand years old. The sciences of geology, physics and chemistry have produced sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that our earth is much older than this and that it has undergone radical changes during its history.” In the fourth issue DeVries returned to that theme in an article entitled, “The Stars Tell Time”: “A strong argument for believing that the universe is very old is based on the fact that all scientific evidence points in this one direction. One cannot help asking the question why God would place so much evidence in the world suggesting that the universe is old if that were not true…What attitude must the average individual take toward such scientific work? He can ignore it completely or say that he refuses to believe it because scientists so often change their minds on matters. Such an attitude gets one nowhere, however. If we are really concerned with the problem of origins, we must do something with these experimental results.” He then challenged those who held to a young earth: “It is not unusual to receive letters with the admonition to accept the ‘plain teaching of Scripture’ and referring to the example set by the Seventh Day Adventists. It seems to us that those who refuse to accept the scientific evidence mentioned above should be willing, and able, to prove that such astronomical measurements are in error and, further, offer some evidence which would point to a much younger universe.” In the April-May issue of 1952, DeVries went further writing on “Flood Geology.” Here he returned to his concern that Seventh Day Adventist flood geology was becoming influential in encouraging a fundamentalist approach to the Bible and science. He rejected this approach noting among other objections that not all orthodox theologians believed that the flood was universal and that the fossil record and scientific dating procedures stood against it. “In the light of the evidence which science has uncovered, evidence which the flood geologists admit exists, such a theory does not make sense. Nor does this commit us, as they erroneously suppose, to an evolutionistic interpretation of the scientific data.”

In 1960 Henry Morris would write his first article (a few others would follow over the years), presenting flood geology and arguing for a young earth. But this view was never accepted as orthodoxy. In 1964 the magazine published a page-long letter by Professor Nick R. Van Til that was sharply critical of Morris’ flood geology. And in January, 1965, Dr. Russell Maatman, a professor of science at Dordt College, published his first article. Maatman through the years would vigorously oppose both evolution and the flood geology. In 1971 Peter Y. De Jong in his “Studies in Genesis I–XI” wrote: “On the question of ‘the age of the earth’ much ink has been spilled…The Bible we affirm is silent on this subject.” In 1994 The Outlook published “The Testimony to Our Time” of Westminster Theological Seminary in California which included the statement that orthodox theologians took different views of the age of the earth. The Outlook seems editorially over the years to have agreed with the Westminster testimony.

Most articles over the years have assumed or defended the traditional interpretation of the days of Genesis one. O.T. Allis, E.J. Young (who would contribute a number of articles on Genesis until his death in 1968), P. Y. De Jong, John Vander Ploeg, Henry Vander Kam, Mark Vander Hart and others would present a rather traditional interpretation. But other interpretations were also recognized as held by orthodox theologians. In 1958 Dr. Meredith G. Kline published his article, “Because It Had Not Rained,” explaining his framework interpretation. The editors expressed their gratitude for being able to publish it, but added that “the publication of this article does not necessarily imply that the editors agree with the author’s interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.” Clearly the magazine was following a policy of allowing a variety of orthodox interpretations to be printed. In 1968 writing of the creation days, Maatman stated: “Some have felt that this problem—if it is one can be solved by postulating that only the first creation days were long periods of time, while the later ones were twenty-four hour days. This surely is not a reasonable modification, if the exegetical arguments suggesting the first creation days were twenty-four hour days have no force, neither do they have force in determining the length of the later days.” Aaldert Mennenga wrote in June 1990, “Now it is true that, on the one hand, for us to know the length of creation days is not very important, and it should make no difference in the way we do our science.”

Disagreement with non-traditional views of the creation days was polite and thoughtful. In 1971 P. Y. De Jong did “cheerfully” reject the framework interpretation, but without any discussion of it. In March of 1972 Vander Ploeg wrote: “Although I cannot speak for them, I assume that the majority of the constituency of the Reformed Fellowship accept the six days of creation as ordinary days. I am not aware of any consensus ever having been sought or published on this.” He then offered as his opinion on the day-age theory: “My own conviction is that, regardless of what science may say, there are incontrovertible considerations that make it exegetically impossible to hold that these were six long periods rather than six regular days.” In 1979 Vander Kam wrote, “These ‘days’ of creation have been the subject of much speculation over the years. Some believe that they were all long periods of time. Others believe that the first three days were such long periods because the sun and moon had not yet been created but that the second group of three days were indeed days of 24 hours. Others believe that all the days were 24 hours in length. There is indeed room for difference of opinion because the term ‘day’ is used in various ways in the Scriptures. When the Scriptures later speak of the ‘day of the Lord,’ no one would restrict this time to a period of 24 hours. However, we believe all the days of Genesis 1 were 24 hours in length.”

A number of articles on evolution related to controversies raised in the Netherlands or in the United States. In 1958 Dr. Marten Woudstra wrote challenging the evolutionary views of the Dutch professor, Lever, and arguing the traditional position that Genesis 1 presented the “what” and “how” of creation. Several articles appeared examining the views of Professor H.M. Kuitert after he had spoken on Genesis and evolution at the Christian Reformed Ministers’ Institute. The greatest controversy arose in 1991. The synodical study committee on creation and science caused a major reaction in the churches and in The Outlook with its defense of Dr. Howard Van Till, an astronomer, and some of his colleagues at Calvin College. Their approach to the Bible was seen as undermining the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis and as supporting an evolutionary development of man. Rev. Roger Sparks in a very helpful article examined the report carefully in the May issue and noted the claim of the scientists that the framework interpretation of the Genesis could be used to support their conclusions. This claim of the scientists unfortunately was not examined in later issues of the magaZine and probably left the impression with many that the framework interpretation could be used as the Calvin College scientists had claimed. In fact those theologians who had developed and defended the framework did so on the basis of exegetical factors they found in Genesis one, but not in Genesis two. Therefore, they upheld a literal interpretation of all of Genesis as historical and insisted that the clear results of exegesis pointed to the immediate creation of Adam by God.

The Outlook reported the decisions of Synod in 1991 on creation and science. Many good statements were made by the synod including a denial that man evolved from animal ancestors. But, as happened at other times, a rather good decision was seriously compromised by the late addition of a statement that private study of such questions should continue. The CRC too often seemed unable to speak with certainty on key doctrinal issues. The Outlook, however, on the issues of evolution and the Bible had labored to avoid both liberalism and fundamentalism.

Concern for the CRC

The first editorial of the Torch and Trumpet observed, “We are frank to say that we are moved by a serious concern for the welfare of Zion. Alarmingly and increasingly perSistent are the reports that there are so many in the Reformed churches who seem to be insensitive to the real meaning of a Reformed confession and life.” While the Christian Reformed Church is not mentioned by name, it is clear that the concern extended to the CRC.

Initially the concern focused on individuals in the CRC. Early in 1953, in one of the first instances of controversy in the magazine, an editorial appeared criticizing an article written by Dr. Henry Stob, professor of apologetics at Calvin Seminary. The article was preceded by more than half a page of appreciation for Dr. Stob and of reasons why the criticism was seen as necessary. The criticism was pOinted, but very polite. The response to Stob expressed the disappointment that he had failed to show strongly the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought and had misused the concept of common grace. The editors wrote: “Common grace, however, does not set aside or neutralize the antithesis. In fact, it presupposes the antithesis. There can be no such thing as I grace except there be a fundamental hostility to be removed or reduced, both in the producer and in the product.” The concern for a loss of antithesis in Reformed thinking was at the heart of the witness of Torch and Trumpet and would recur often in its history. For example, Rev. Lubbertus Oostendorp, in reviewing a book by Dr. John Kromminga, noted of the CRC in 1958: “It seems, however, also to be characterized by a growing impatience with the thinking of A. Kuyper which has dominated the past fifty years.”

The article on Stob sparked considerable discussion and was defended by the authors in the June-July issue. Near the end of that defense they made a very interesting comment: “With regard to Dr. Stob’s infelicitous reference to the trigger-happy sentry we would like to comment that Dr. Stob is just as aware as we are of the fact that the history of American Protestantism records more casualties resulting from a lack of vigilance than from too much Vigilance.” In spite of the extraordinary lengths the authors had gone to be polite (and to speak to Stob personally before they wrote), they were still characterized as “trigger happy.” That reaction was typical of attitudes the magazine and its authors would face from many in the CRC over the years. When in January 1962 Rev. Leonard Greenway looked back on ten years of the Torch and Trumpet, he recalled how Professor Henry Van Til at the beginning had named it TNT. He did not mention how its critics had come to call it the “Glow and Blow.” For the critics of the confessionalists in the CRC, whatever the confessionalists did and however they did it was wrong.

In the early years concern would continue to focus on individuals. For example, the names of Rev. Harry Boer and Dr. James Daane appear for troubling views. But of the church as a whole, Dr. R.B. Kuiper could write in 1955: “The Christian Reformed Church still is one of the most orthodox churches on the face of the globe.” Yet it must “strive to retain its soundness” or it will be lost.

The concern about the denomination as a whole begins to arise in 1959. H.J. Kuiper wrote an article, “What is Happening to the Christian Reformed Church?” He observed, “We can no longer hide the fact that the leadership of the Christian Reformed Church is divided.” I What were the issues that divided the church? He listed theistic evolution, the infallibility of the Bible, conditions for church membership and the character of the seminary proposed for Nigeria. Kuiper opposed opening church membership to those who did not accept the doctrines of the church, and supported the effort to build a distinctly Reformed seminary in Nigeria. (The struggle to build a genuinely Reformed seminary among the Tiv in Nigeria would be a recurring theme in the Torch and Trumpet.) Beyond these issues KUiper described two attitudes about which the church shouldbe “deeply concerned.” “The first is the rather nonchalant attitude of some that the Christian Reformed Church is immune to heresy. It is said that we have nothing to worry about as long as we steer clear of controversy.” “The second reason for our concern is that one of the worst obstacles to theological and ecclesiastical progress is the propagation of unsound doctrine.” Despite these growing concerns, in April 1959 Leonard Greenway could comment: “One can be concerned and still be fairly optimistic.”

Kuiper’s comment about the need to be progressive may strike some as strange. Was the Torch and Trumpet progressive? In many ways it was. It did not espouse the most conservative views in the CRC; nor was it unwilling to consider new ideas. For example in the first mention of women in office—a news note about discussions in the Netherlands in 1965—Peter Y. De Jong suggested that the church might need to study this issue more carefully than had been done in the past: “A truly Reformed church, however, will not decide this issue on the basis of tradition…There is more to this matter than meets the eye. At the very least, reverent listening to all that Scripture has to say about women in the church is required by those who would be faithful to God’s will.” In his article, “Have we Written Each Other Off?” written in March, 1970 De Jong also expressed his sense as editor that the publication represented the moderate center of the CRC. He was concerned about the left and right wing extremes in the church: “Yet the situation, unless radically changed and that without undue delay, can only produce increased estrangement from each other and in time (perhaps sooner than we dare to think) a divided church which hides its disagreements under the disguise of a specious external unity…Many throughout the church are being deeply divided by disagreements and divisions of judgment between the Association of Christian Reformed Laymen and its supporters on the one hand, and Calvin College and Seminary leaders with their supporters on the other.” Vander Ploeg expressed himself similarly as editor in 1973, seeing a key leadership role for The Outlook: “Progressive conservative, or the truly Reformed element, both in the CRC and elsewhere, are crying for responsible leadership.” The Outlook sought to provide that responsible leadership.

In 1961 for the first time the magazine devoted very extensive coverage to the CRC Synod (24 out of 32 pages). For most of the rest of the history of the magazine, CRC synods would receive much coverage and discussion. The attention given to synodical action demonstrated increased worry about developments in the church. Still that concern was linked to confidence.

R.B. Kuiper wrote of the CRC in December, 1961: “It has Reformed creeds and is as loyal to its creeds as any denomination…But in one significant respect we are slumbering and many of us fast asleep. We are not as concerned as we ought to be about knowledge…[We face the] imminent danger of becoming a shorn Samson.”

In 1963 a new and very troubling controversy at the heart of the life of the church appeared in the magazine. Many believed that the teaching of Professor Harold Dekker of Calvin Seminary on the character of the love of God, undermined the doctrines of particular grace taught in the Canons of Dort. With considerable dismay, R.B. Kuiper wrote an article, “Is the Glory Departing?”. He maintained: “The official theology, then, of the Christian Reformed Church excels in Scripturalness…But this writer is convinced that today we are falling far short of that goal and that there is considerable evidence that we, too, are afflicted with much the same sort of rationalism and absolutism as plagued the Arminians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries….” The Dekker case was finally resolved at the 1967 Synod of which Dr. J.B. Hulst wrote: “But the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church has spoken. It has spoken softly, but it has spoken.”

In October, 1970, Vander Ploeg became the new editor and soon changed the name of the publication to The Outlook. The most significant change, however, was not in the name, but in the tone of the magazine. The new editor focused much sharper attention and critique on the CRC than before. His first editorial was entitled, “Secession is Serious Business” which concluded that although the time for secession had not come, serious reformation was needed. The next month he wrote, “The CRC in 1970—Quo Vadis?” expressing strong concern about the direction of the church. In January, 1971, he stated: “We make no apology for our avowed intention to continue to engage in controversial writing as the need arises.” He felt the threat of the times was great for all Reformed churches: “Constantly all churches are being assailed by every novelty in the theological hodgepodge that becomes increasingly bizarre. Specifically he mentioned the Bible: “Heading all the rest of these basic issues or areas of concern is the downgrading of the Bible as the authoritative, inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God.” But additional matters counted: “Other common basic issues by which the fires of controversy in churches are stirred today include the following: bona fide or counterfeit ecumenism, including the question of whether membership in the World Council of Churches is to be or not to be; priority in the mission of the church (kerygmatic or social involvement); complete honesty or mental reservations in one’s confessional commitment; the liturgical trend (poetry, drama, and dialogue usurping the place of the sermon); compromise rather than conviction becoming the dominant mood when ecclesiastical bodies fail to uphold warranted protests with firm and clear-cut decisions; agitation to have the church reconsider its stand excluding Lodge members from church affiliation; the acceptance of evolution at the cost of the Genesis account of creation by divine fiat.”

In October, 1973, Vander Ploeg began a series of editorials outlining his hopes and strategy for the church. First, under the title “The Conservative’s Dilemma in Changing a Church,” he rejected both “detachment” and “capitulation” as appropriate Christian responses to the deformation of the church. In January, 1974, he returned to his subject, responding to letters asking him to be specific about his concerns in the CRC. He listed 11, saying the list was not exhaustive: the new hermeneutic, theistic evolution, objections to the Form of Subscription, usurping the place of the sermon, attacks on the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, neo-Pentecostalism, support of the union seminary in Nigeria, calls for open communion, agitation to accept Lodge members into the church, pursuit of closer fellowship with the RCA without addressing the differences between the denominations, the synodical report on homosexuality. The next month he added to his list: failure to draw closer to really Reformed denominations (like the Orthodox Presbyterian and Canadian Reformed) while keeping ties with the GKN; growing indifference to Reformed thought at Calvin College and Seminary; inroads of the Dooyeweerdian Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship; suggesting that adultery is not the only ground for divorce; lack of church discipline.

Still he did not call for secession. Rather he called for “polarization.” The idea of polarization was to encourage conservatives, clearly oppose what was wrong in the church, positively to promote reformation and improvement wherever possible, and finally to prepare for secession ifthat became necessary. A strategy of active confrontation was the need of the hour.

Vander Ploeg had eager hope for the future. In July, 1977, he wrote the first of three articles on his desire for a “United Reformed Church.” He did not envision this church simply as a secession church from the CRC, but rather as a coming together of confessionally Reformed congregations from around the country to offer a disciplined Calvinistic witness.

Late in 1977, unexpectedly, Vander Ploeg resigned as managing editor due to poor health and was succeeded by the Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of Dutton CRC. The sharp tone of the magazine under Vander Ploeg was somewhat moderated by Dejong. At times a somewhat hopeful tone was struck. In January, 1980, Vander Ploeg himself would write: “It is heartening that at the 1979 CRC Synod somewhat of a new and better wind was blowing.” In 1982 Jelle Tuininga reported on Synod: “I must begin by saying that I was once again encouraged by the many good things in the CRC.” In 1983 Rev. Jay Wesseling reported: “In summary, Synod was balanced, deliberate, and more conservative than many had expected.” In 1988 Rev. Thomas Vanden Heuvel would write: “I was generally pleased with the decisions of Synod 1988. It is very obvious, however, that there is some deep division in the CRC.”

When Thomas and Laurie Vanden Heuvel became editors in 1990, they renewed the magazine’s commitment to the positive presentation of the Reformed faith. And indeed the majority of articles would be positive. But events in the CRC would soon require sharp analysis and vigorous resistance. The issues of women as ministers and elders (Synod 1990) and of creation and science (Synod 1991) became major stories in the first half of the 1990s. The Outlook closely followed the debate on women in office. Conservatives were encouraged by success at synods in 1992 and 1994. But the July–August 1995 issue contained four articles on Synod 1995’s betrayal of its own procedures and of sound doctrine in providing a way for women to be ordained despite the prohibition of the Church Order and the ruling of the previous synod. Appeals to the Synod 1996 were unsuccessful and the editors wrote in July–August that year: “The period of confrontation is over. We lost…” From that time on the CRC was only occasionally mentioned in The Outlook. CRC synods were not extensively covered (except in 1998 when the treatment of ministers leaving the CRC was before synod). A magazine from the CRC and about the CRC had moved away from the CRC because the leadership of the CRC had moved away from that Reformed faith that The Outlook held dear. The magazine turned more to its primary task of positively presenting Reformed truth.

Involvement in the CRC

The changing nature of the coverage of events in the CRC over the years reflected both the changing character of the CRC and the changing nature of the involvement of the leadership of the Reformed Fellowship with the CRC. In its earliest years the editorial committee was led by the young Rev. John Piersma and many prominent members of the CRC including professors at the Calvin College and Seminary wrote for the magazine. In 1957 H.J. Kuiper, after retiring from 27 years as the editor of The Banner, brought his very considerable prestige and influence at the very heart of the denomination to the Torch and Trumpet. Kuiper (1885–1962) was the first full-time editor of The Banner and demonstrated by becoming editor of Torch and Trumpet that this magazine represented the concerns of important leaders in the CRC.

R.B. Kuiper (1886–1966), a frequent contributor to Torch and Trumpet, also demonstrated how important leaders in the CRC supported the magazine. While most of his teaching ministry was at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, he served as president of Calvin College from 1930 to 1933 and as president of Calvin Seminary from 1952–1956.

After the death of H.J. KUiper in 1963, P.Y. De Jong became editor. The son of a famous CRC minister and chosen to be a professor of practical theology at Calvin Seminary (1964–1970), De Jong was also an important figure in the CRC. That pattern continued when in 1970 Vander Ploeg became the editor. Vander Ploeg had succeeded H.J. Kuiper as editor of The Banner (chosen by special action of synod adding his name to the four regular nominations presented by committee to the synod). Also in 1973 Leonard Greenway was elected president of synod while a member of the Reformed Fellowship Board.

The selection of Peter De Jong as editor in 1978 (as later with the Vanden Heuvels in 1990), represented the selection of a successful and well-informed pastor from the CRC, but not one with as much influence at the heart of the denomination as had been the case before. The movement of The Outlook from the center to the periphery of the denomination culminated in the departure of most of the leadership of the magazine from the CRC in the second half of the 1990s. While contributing editors Dr. Cornelis Venema of Mid-America Reformed Seminary and Dr. John Sittema of Dallas, Texas have remained in the CRC, the editors, Thomas and Laurie Vanden Heuvel, contributing editor Robert Godfrey, and almost all of the Board of the Reformed Fellowship have left the CRC.

With the July–August 1996 issue The Outlook really ceased being a primarily CRC publication.


The Outlook has not been a perfect publication. In retrospect perhaps more attention should have been given to other institutions in the CRC rather than focusing so much on the synod. In a Reformed denomination we rightly expect the synod to be the bellwether of the church. Peter De Jong gave eloquent expression to a proper expectation of synod when he lamented in July, 1976: “We can no longer get dependable guidance from our now divided church assemblies from which most of us since childhood were taught to expect it.” But in fact the synod of the CRC was not a leading ecclesiastical indicator, rather it reflected changes coming from other sources in CRC institutions and bureaucracy.

Whatever the weaknesses of The Outlook, the great preponderance of its witness was clear, positive and faithful in seeking to propagate and defend true Reformed Christianity. We all wish it might have had greater impact and effect. The decline of theological reading among Reformed people certainly contributed to its limited success.

Frequently over the years the Torch and Trumpet and The Outlook referred to the life and work of J. Gresham Machen, the principal founder of Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He was held up as a model of integrity, faithfulness and staunch defense of the faith. There is perhaps some irony in this model, for Machen too was unable, for all his efforts, to save the denomination he loved. But this magazine for fifty years was, like Machen, valiant for the truth. That faithfulness will stand as a model for those who will carry the torch of Reformed Christianity to future generations.

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, professor of Church History, is also president of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, CA. He is a contributing editor of The Outlook magazine.