I have brought a colleague along with me. Stephen Berry is twice the winner of the Akin Taylor Award in Southern Presbyterian Theology, given out by the PCA Historical Society. And I've asked him to come. He and I have co-authored this together. And I have asked him to come and begin with the historical section, and then I'll follow up with the theological section of the paper. Steve is an up-and-coming young Southern Presbyterian scholar. He's an archivist. and a librarian in Jackson. He's looking after the Blackburn collection there and digging into all the old manuscripts and class notes from some of the old Columbia Seminary professors, Cornwall Gerrido and Palmer and Woodrow. We have class notes from all of their classes. Stephen hails from Tennessee, from the Nashville area. He is a double graduate from Vanderbilt, both his bachelor's and his master's degree there. Did his work in Jackson. at RPS, and then followed that with a library science degree at Southern U. So, Stephen, if you'll come and get us started, we will talk about the Woodrow Revolution project. On the way up here, Professor Rankin and I had a discussion on history, on whether it was cyclical or not, and he pinned me down as a person who believed in cycles in history, and I said mainly because man is not smart enough to come up with something new to break the cycle. But the controversy we're studying tonight is different than the one that faces us today. It was not a controversy over creation per se, but over evolution specifically. And at the center of the controversy in the Southern Presbyterian Church, it was unique in that it focused on one man, and that one man was James Woodrow. who is probably most well known for being the uncle of the United States President Woodrow Wilson, who was named for James Woodrow's father. James Woodrow was born in Carlisle, England, which is in the border area of Scotland and England. His father was a Turkish-Scotland minister. They immigrated to the United States when he was eight years old, settled in first New York and then moved to the Ohio region, where his father associated with the Presbyterian Church Old School. They arrived right when the old school, new school split occurred, and his father was described as a thoroughly old school man. James was educated at Jefferson College, which had been started by John McMillan, among others, and graduated with top honors. And then we're described as how intelligent he was at the time, and this was shown by his promptly moving south. He took a teaching position at first in Tuscaloosa teaching what would be our equivalent of high school. But his reputation spread and he was offered a position at Oglethorpe University in Georgia. He assumed the post of chemistry and sciences professor. And feeling inadequate in these areas, he decided to undertake further studies. So he first went to Harvard and studied under the renowned scientist Louis Agassiz. Under his encouragement, he sought further study overseas. He attended the University of Heidelberg in Germany and graduated summa cum laude and became the first PhD student in the state of Georgia. It's reported that his professors in Germany were so impressed with him that they offered him a post, but there is no substantiating evidence for this. So he was definitely a man of talent and ability, and promptly settled into his duties at Oglethorpe. He'd always felt somewhat called to the ministry, and began to study theology while he was there in Georgia, and felt a desire to preach at some of the small churches in the area. So he went before Presbyterian, was first licensed, and then finally ordained, without having attended any seminary, but simply studied on his own and passed unanimously. In 1860, the Senate of Georgia, who at that time, they would rotate, who would promote professors for the seminary, and they put forth James Woodrow to be the new professor of a new chair connecting theology and science, the Perkins Professorship of Natural Science in connection with Revelation. We would label it as sort of a precursor to apologetics, but there's much more than that. It was science. If you look at the notes of the classes that Woodrow taught there, you see theological relations to science, but you also see science. It's pure and simple. Geologic charts explain the ages of the earth. Woodrow became an adopted Southerner, and we see this during the war, which had already broken out by the time he had assumed his duties as professor at Columbia. He volunteered for the Confederate States of America's Army, and he was assigned to labor in their chemistry laboratories. People of Charleston and South Carolina would bring their family silver to him, and he would melt it down and produce silver nitrate, which was used in cauterizing wounds. Also during this time, he assumed ownership of the Southern Presbyterian, a weekly newspaper. He also assumed publishing duties of the Southern Presbyterian Review, the theological journal of the day. And he quickly became involved in a number of business activities. One of his main biographers, Robert Gustafson, catalogs it this way. In the years that followed, he was to be president of the Central Bank, president of the South Carolina Home Insurance Company, president of the Carolina Loan and Investment Company, Vice President of the Congaree Lumber and Fur Company. Vice President of a Building and Loan Company. Vice President of the Columbia Land and Improvement Company. Director of the CN and LRR Company. Director in the CC and ARR Company. And Director of the Columbia Phosphate Company. And as one can imagine, all these duties made him a wealthy man. And his scientific activities did not stop with just Columbia Seminary, but he also assumed teaching duties at nearby University of South Carolina and eventually became dean and later president of the institution. Woodrow's professional scientific honors also increased during this period. He would become an associate of the Victoria Institute of London, associate of the Isis Institute of Dresden, Saxony, member of the Scientific Association of Germany and Switzerland, He would become a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of International Congress of Geologists. He would receive an honorary MD from the Georgia Medical College, a DD from Hampton, Sydney, an LLD from Davidson College, and a JUD from Washington and Jefferson College, his alma mater. He traveled extensively in Europe and eventually settled after his retirement in Columbia, South Carolina and died there in 1907. In summary of just his life, he was a Presbyterian by heritage and conviction. He was a top scientist of his day. He was a man whose theological expertise was not gained by formal schooling, but by personal study. Now let me give you a little background about this Perkins chair, which Woodrow was to assume at Columbia. The 19th century is the time when science and theology began to become a loggerhead, mainly through the advances in geology, which was a new science. And the questions that were arising from its findings concerned Presbyterians. They were very concerned about science because they saw science as being just another one of God's modes of revelation, and therefore, What science proves is true could never contradict what God says is true. If science says it's true, true science, then it cannot conflict with God's word. So Presbyterians in Mississippi proposed that a chair would be created to teach theological students something about science so they could engage the culture of their day. Judge John Perkins of the Oaks Plantation near Columbus, Mississippi donated $50,000, a very considerable sum for the day, for the founding at Columbia Theological Seminary, the Perkins Professorship of Natural Science in connection with Revelation. Now, it's very clear that Judge Perkins gave the gift thinking that his pastor, James Lyons, who had printed Articles in the Southern Presbyterian Review on theology and science would assume the chair. But as I mentioned earlier, the Senate of Georgia was the one who had the choice at the time. And they looked no farther than Oglethorpe University and James Woodrow. So in 1861, James Woodrow addressed the board of directors of Columbia Theological Seminary. And at that time, he outlined what he saw his chair doing. And he was very nervous. He was nervous because his own views at this time could be taken as already being much farther to the left of his church. He expressed it this way, the oppressive feeling of responsibility is greatly increased by the fact that I have been called not to discharge the duties of an office already well known, in which the experience of many predecessors affords guidance. but to organize an entirely new Department of Instruction without a single similar chair in any theological school, either in America or Europe, to serve as a model. Woodrow outlined the duties of what he saw this chair to be, to evidence the harmony only where it has been doubted or denied, or where opinions prevailing among scientific men either are or are supposed to be inconsistent with our sacred records. In other words, to scrutinize the nature and force of current and popular objections to the Scriptures, to meet them and to set them aside by proving that they spring either from science falsely so-called or from incorrect interpretations of the words of the Holy Bible. He promised a careful study of the principles of biblical interpretation and to event entire harmony, or at least absence of discord between theology and science. He then went on to give three examples of what he would deal with in his class. The first is the age of the earth. The second was the unity of the human race. And the third was the extent of the flood of Noah. Later in a speech, Woodrow used them as illustrations of what he would teach, saying, we will doubtless in such an examination find much that we must receive as certainly true, much that is certainly false, or at least wholly unproven, with much that presents such evidence as to leave us in doubt. Under the first head, I would place the teachings of geology respecting the antiquity of the earth and the gradual nature of the processes by which the creator brought it into its present condition. Under the second, I would place the teachings of such ethnologists as deny the specific unity of the human family and of those who maintain the extreme antiquity of man. Under the third, I would place all that affects the character and extent of the Noachian deluge. So what he's saying there is he's saying that the age of the earth is something that's certainly true. That God spent a great length of time. It's not six little days. He took an exception to the confession before the board saying, I believe that the confession says it's six little days and I do not hold to that view. With these statements, Woodrow planted himself firmly outside the conservative camp of the church. And the most surprising thing is hardly anyone reacted to it. The main reason, perhaps, is the fact that two weeks after this address, the Church of the Confederate States of America would meet for the first time. There, they would be consumed with the duties of establishing a new church. And at the same time, his address was giving, his country was already at war. So the church, consumed by establishing itself and by the ongoing of the war, took little notice of the details of his aggress. All combatants who would emerge in the conflict 25 years later would express that if the church had dealt with Woodrow then, if they had considered the issues he was promoting then, maybe the later conflict would have been avoided. Woodrow put the church on notice of what his views were. Now, I must mention that at this point, evolution was not an issue. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and as many have noticed, practically no one in the United States took notice. It was until much after the war that America started considering the work of Darwin. So there was a long time emerge between when Woodrow's inauguration and when the evolution controversy would start. In the meantime, Woodrow established himself in Columbia Seminary and taught for 23 years, unimpeded. There was some debate with him and R.L. Dabney. Dabney was one of the few who opposed the creation of the chair at Columbia, saying that such a chair would have a decided tendency toward atheism. Dabney published in 1863 an address in the Southern Presbyterian Review entitled, Geology and the Bible. And that sparked an ongoing debate between he and Woodrow on this relationship between science and theology. I won't go into the specifics of the debate. I direct you to the printed version of this lecture. For the sake of time, I want to turn to the actual evolution controversy itself. But I do want to say that in this debate, we start seeing a change occur in Dabney, I mean in Woodrow. This interaction with Dabney is starting to cause Woodrow to harden the divide in places between science and theology. Woodrow, in his inaugural address, The Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible cannot inform any of our opinions as to scientific matters. But at that time, he maintained that science and the Bible truly considered would be in harmony with one another. But as this debate with Dabney took place, we start seeing the line between the two become much harder and much less permeable. The Woodrow evolution controversy properly considered began, as most controversies do, with rumors. Columbia Seminary was having trouble in the late 1870s and early 1880s. They were having serious financial difficulties. And as the new financial director, board member J.B. Mack, went around trying to raise funds for the seminary, he started catching glimpses of people whispering about Columbia Seminary being the Evolution Seminary. These rumors were, the problem these rumors created was exacerbated when Rudrow did not address the Alumni Association on the 50th anniversary of the seminary. Every other member of the faculty gave a lecture giving a history of their department, of their chair, But Woodrow was absent. With these increasing Woodrows, Dr. Mack, who is now a strong member of the board, called on Dr. Woodrow to publish his views and to give an address to the seminary board. Now, I want to first note that here the chair had been established to examine the relationship of theology and silence. The hottest topic of the day was Darwin, and Woodrow was silent. The Perkins professor had not publicly addressed it, so you can see why people were nervous. On May 7, 1884, Dr. Woodrow stood before the Alumni Association and read his 28-page address. He started by announcing a change that had taken place. The relationship between science and theology is no longer, to him, one of harmony, but one of non-contradiction. We hear much of the harmony of science and scripture, of their reconciliation and the like, now is antecedently probable that there is room for either agreement or disagreement. We do not speak of the harmony of mathematics and chemistry, or of zoology and astronomy, or the reconciliation of physics and metaphysics. Why? Because the subject matter of each of these branches of knowledge is so different from the rest, may it not be that we have here a representation of the probable relations between the Bible and science, that their contents are so entirely different that it is vain and misleading to be searching for harmony." Now consider for a moment that he had put a firm distinction here between mathematics and chemistry. Now we know that mathematics and chemistry are very harmoniously integrated. You can't separate the two, but that's the model. Separation is the model he's starting to put forward. The Bible does not teach science, and to take its language in a scientific sense is to grossly pervert its meaning. Whatever the Bible may say, touching the mode of creation is merely incidental to its main design and must be interpreted accordingly. The Bible does not speak on scientific matters. to this non-scientific scripture Woodrow professed his allegiance. I have found nothing in my study of the Holy Bible and of natural science that shakes my firm belief in the divine inspiration of every word of that Bible and in the consequent absolute truth, the absolute inerrancy of every expression which it contains from beginning to end. While there are not a few things which I confess myself wholly unable to understand, yet I have found nothing which contradicts other known truths. Woodrow then goes on to announce another change which had taken place in his view, and this is in regard to evolution. He defined evolution as descent, later modifying that definition to descent with modification. Thus, from the fossil record, Woodrow concluded that plant and animal life must have evolved. There seems no way of avoiding this conclusion except by assuming that the so-called remains of animals and plants buried in the earth or not really remains of things that were once alive, but that God created them just as we find them. And it is impossible to believe that a God of truth would create corpses or skeletons or driftwood or stuff." Now Woodrow, having affirmed his firm belief in the scriptures, then went on to give a little clearer view of what he thought was going on in Genesis 1 and 2. And the specific defense of his position, which he latched onto, was the meaning of the word of God, dust. For remembering the principles and facts already stated and seeking to appertain the meaning of dust of the ground by examining how the same words are employed elsewhere in the narrative, the sharp definiteness disappears. Now Adam, to whom God was speaking, was flesh and blood and bones, and the food of serpents then is now consisted of the same substances, flesh and blood. The only proper conclusion and view of these facts seem to be that the narrative does not intend to distinguish in accordance with chemical notions different kinds of matter, nor does it intend to distinguish in accordance with chemical notions different kinds of matter. Let's find here inorganic in different states, and they're organic. but merely to refer in general, incidental ways to previously existing matters without intending or attempting to describe its exact nature. What Woodrow is saying is, when it says, God made man of the dust of the ground, that that dust is organic dust, not inorganic dust. He concluded his address saying, believing as I do that the scriptures are almost certainly silent on the subject, I find it hard to see how anyone could hesitate to defer the hypothesis of immediate creation to the hypothesis of immediate creation. The latter has nothing to offer in its favor. We have seen a little of what the former may claim." For James Woodrow then, the doctrine of evolution is God's plan of creation. Upon hearing this address, the board took a vote, thanking Dr. Woodrow for presenting his views clearly and then ordered that these views be published. And to many, the controversy perhaps was over. He did what the board requested. But what happened next was one of the most lengthy and bizarre ecclesiastical cases that the church has ever seen. No less than eight senates would pass resolutions concerning the matter. It would come up to General Assembly four times. It would be considered by numbers of presbyteries. He would be dismissed, reinstated, dismissed again, and reinstated again by the board before it was over, before finally being dismissed. Let me just give a brief rundown of the chronology of these cases. Part of the problem was that Columbia Seminary was controlled by four synods. So those four synods had to review the board minutes. And the first one was the Synod of South Carolina, meeting here in Greenville. They appointed a committee to study the matter, and the majority of that committee gave a report saying that they disapproved of the teaching of evolution in any other matter than just purely descriptive. So they forbid any teaching of evolution inculcating its truth, but said that Woodrow could remain in his position. The minority report forbid the teaching of evolution at all. A five-day debate followed in which Woodrow himself would give a five-hour address I mainly want to give you a little taste of how Woodrow's opponents thought, briefly. The main speaker in opposition to Woodrow's position was John L. Gerrido, professor of theology at Columbia Seminary. Five defects were noted by Gerrido in Woodrow's evolution speech, which should have prevented the board from approving it. The first objection was the proposition that the Bible does not teach science, although in an important sense true, yet in some degree vague and ambiguous. and needing further qualifications. Gerrido also objected to Woodrow's claim that all should be accepted in relation between science and the Bible as non-contradiction rather than harmony. In this long, philosophically complex portion of the speech, Gerrido called the potent principle of non-contradiction a charming but delusive dream. His point that Woodrow was espousing a doctrine of total separation of the Bible and science. Gerrido said that we are not to look for harmony of identical statements. but for harmony of non-contradictory statements. The third and fourth defects were objections to Woodrow's not having covered all possible logical options in relationship between science and theology exhaustively. The fifth and final objection was that Woodrow used the terms science, theology, and the Bible variously in his address without drawing clear distinctions. Perhaps the most helpful critique Gerardo brought in was the use of the word Bible. He distinguished between two uses of the word, one objective and one subjective. Objectively considered, the term designates the meaning of the scriptures which God himself, their author, intended them to convey. Subjectively considered, the term is different, though. There is a relative sense in which the word Bible is obliged to be accepted, the sense in which the Bible, relative to our own apprehension of its meaning, the interpretations which we honestly place upon it, constitute it, the Bible for us. Our ultimate standard of judgment in matters of faith and practice. It was the subjective use of this term which the synod was to consider, not the objective. Whether or not the church's interpretation of the Bible is to be identical with its absolute and infallible meaning, so long as she sincerely believes it, so to be. It is the Bible to her." What he's saying there is the church has the right to determine what it considers to be biblical or not. The latter half of Gerardot's speech was calling attention to the fact that the seminary was no place to teach hypothesis. The church has the right to require, is solemnly bound to require, that her doctrines be taught and that what is contrary to her doctrines not be taught. Otherwise, the results must be flagrant, inconsistent, unfaithfulness to her convictions of truth. and recreancy to sacred trust and deliberate suicide. For the church's seminary to teach something the church did not hold was suicide. He argued that the Presbyterian Church has never understood the Bible to teach evolution but something contrary to it. Thus, the church cannot allow such teaching in our seminaries. And Dr. Woodrow must therefore agree to be silent on this issue or resign from Columbia faculty. Now it's interesting to note that no time in any of these four synods was Woodrow accused of heresy. What he is accused of was teaching a doctrine unapproved by the church. The church's seminary is to be a dogmatic institution, not one of speculation. The synods of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama followed upon the Senate of South Carolina's vote. The Senate of South Carolina, their vote was called ambiguous. They rejected both the majority and minority committee report. And instead just replaced it with a resolution that in the judgment of this Senate, the teaching of evolution in the theological seminary at Columbia, except in a purely expository manner, with no intention of inculcating its truth is hereby disapproved." It said nothing about Woodrow's removal or his future with the Senate. The Senate of Georgia met next and its resolution to be called decidedly anti-Woodrow and the Alabama and Florida Senate even more so. So here you have three of the controlling Senates taking a firm position and one not. The next meeting of the board of directors of Columbia Seminary asked Woodrow to resign. He refused. The board then declared his chair vacant. The next meeting of the synods, the synods instructed the board to bring Dr. Woodrow back, saying they misunderstood what the synods wanted. In the meantime, Woodrow demanded to be tried for heresy. He stood before the Augusta Presbytery saying, I'm teaching it to mean evolution. I will teach it. I'm teaching it to 4,000 people, referring to his newspaper, and you are responsible unless you stop me. So the trial continued. Augusta Presbytery found him not guilty of heresy. The case was appealed. The Georgia Senate, Senate of Georgia, reversed the decision. The General Assembly twice took a firm position on evolution. Finally, Woodrow, after the second General Assembly decision, was removed from the faculty of Columbia Seminary. The controversy was formally over. But it did not go away. Woodrow, a few years later, being a member of Augusta Presbytery, but continuing to live and work in Columbia, South Carolina, now teaching solely at the college, decided to transfer his membership to Charleston Presbytery. The Charleston Presbytery refused to allow him to transfer his membership. At once citing the names, numerous names that Woodrow had called the seminary, and the Presbytery, labeling the Presbytery a court of Rome. Numerous comments he had made about the Charleston Presbytery were read in Presbytery as evidence that he had no respect for the body, so why should he be admitted? Again, at this Presbytery meeting, Woodrow took an exception to the confession on six days of creation, an exception in the grounds of evolution. Before I turn it to my colleague to discuss and to clarify some of the central issues of this controversy, let me just give you a picture of the long-lasting effects of it. The Woodrow controversy in one sense ended discussion on evolution for a number of years. The denomination was safe, but in another sense weakened it ultimately. because the controversy was so extended and so bitter that it created a distaste for anything controversial in the next generation of leadership. R.A. Webb put it this way, just after I graduated from the seminary, a great controversy sprang up over his views on the subject of evolution. And circumstances put me into that controversy as his opponent. It lasted eight weary years. It satisfied my appetite for controversy for life. Not long after Woodrow, a scant 30 years, Thornton Whelan gave an address on the relation of science and theology to Davidson College. He dedicated his book to James Woodrow and gave what can only be called a Woodrow evaluation. of the relationship of science and theology. In the late 1920s and 1930s, another evolution controversy happened in the Southern Presbyterian Church. And this time, the minister was allowed to remain. In 1969, the Presbyterian Church of the United States, the Southern Presbyterian Church, formally adopted James Woodrow's position as a judge. The battle was won, the war was lost.