Introduction
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was a figure caught in the fray of liberal philosophical naturalism which had taken root across American society. While America was vastly seduced by liberal theology and utilitarian scientific naturalism, Machen and his few friends sought to protect orthodox Reformed Theology over and against such a naturalistic assault. Christianity and Liberalism was written to “the Ruling Elders’ Association of Chester Presbytery an address which was subsequently published in The Princeton Theological Review, vol. xx, 1922, pp. 93-117, under the title ‘Liberalism or Christianity.’”[1] Nearly one-hundred years later our beloved kinsmen are even more wired by liberal underpinnings which have furthered their cause straight to the center of Christian theology and the ecclesiology of the church. The ambition of this critical book review serves to highlight Machen’s work in reference to our current battle against liberal theology and philosophical systems alike.
Biographical Sketch
J. Gresham Machen was born in Maryland, Baltimore, July 28, 1881, sixteen-years after the end of the American Civil War.[2] His mother was from Georgia, while his father hailed from Maryland. They were both educated, and his father made some renown as a lawyer in Baltimore.[3] This meant Machen was privileged with what we call an American Dream kind of upbringing. Growing up in the Presbyterian Church, along with wealth, he attended “the private University School for Boys where classics were stressed, including Latin from the time he was 11.”[4] He was further educated at Johns Hopkins and Princeton Universities, Princeton Theological Seminary, the University of Marburg, and the University of Göttingen.[5] At the age of twenty-one Machen inherited $50,000 from his maternal grandfather, hen at thirty-five he inherited a similar amount from his father.[6] Piper expresses Machen’s pursuit against liberalism as not merely intellectual “casting stones,” rather, at Marburg, under the teaching of Wilhelm Herrmann, He “was almost lured into the camp.”[7] Writing home in 1905, Machen pens, “In New England those who do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus are, generally speaking, religiously dead; in Germany, Herrmann has taught me that is by no means the case.”[8] Herrmann had a “passion and joy” about him which appeared alive in Christ; certainly more than anything he had experienced back home or at Princeton.[9] Herrmann’s joyous personality indelibly left an impressionable reception on Machen. How could someone so full of life and passion be a proponent of destructive false doctrines? By a means of grace, this also proved to steer his later defenses of Reformed Theology with compassion toward those holding liberal theological views.[10] Nevertheless, according to John Piper, Machen returned stateside from Germany to heed a call to teach at Princeton with his evangelical faith intact.[11]
Machen heeded his call at Princeton for twenty-three years (1906-1929), “During that time he became a pillar of conservative Reformed orthodoxy and a strong apologist for Biblical Christianity and an internationally acclaimed New Testament Scholar.”[12] At Princeton, Machen spent nearly two-decades amidst Princeton’s Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy. The liberal modernists accused him of fundamentalism, though he neither saw himself as a modernist or fundamentalists. Rather, as Machen reflected, “Do you suppose that I do regret my being called by a term that I greatly dislike, a “fundamentalist”? Most certainly I do. But in the presence of a great common foe, I have little time to be attacking my brethren who stand with me in defense of the Word of God.”[13] In 1909 the words of Benjamin Warfield cut to the marrow of Machen. Warfield, at the 400th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth, gave an address which defended Calvinism as not merely one of many theistic approaches to the Christian faith, rather, Calvinism was the height of the Christian faith in full bloom.[14] It was at this time that Machen happily enthralled himself with the god-centered doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God. Reformed Theology, with its historical Calvinistic doctrines, became for him “Christian faith in the purest form.”[15] And modernism or liberal theology was not merely another theistic approach to doctrine, it was in fact a false teaching.
Combating liberal modernism would not make him many friends, as the movement seemed to impress the multitudes. In 1929, as tensions broiled, Machen resigned from Princeton to subsequently found Westminster Theological Seminary.[16] Then in 1935-1936 “Machen’s Presbytery in Trenton, New Jersey, found him guilty of insubordination to church authorities and stripped him of his ordination.”[17] After Machen criticized the promotion of a liberal-minded missionary in China, he established his own independent missions board. He appealed the insubordination to no avail. Amidst pioneering Westminster, Machen formed a new denomination called, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. At the first inaugural address at Westminster, Machen said, “No, my friends, though Princeton Seminary is dead, the noble tradition of Princeton Seminary is alive. Westminster Seminary will endeavor by God’s grace to continue that tradition unimpaired.”[18]
J. Gresham Machen died on New Year’s Day 1937, age fifty-five. His gracious tenacity to serve the church with an authentic, historically orthodox Reformed Theology is remarkable. Even in his death, of which he traveled with pneumonia to preach the Gospel, consequently ending his life, was done from a selfless grace to preach the glorious Gospel of Christ. His work and his legacy give us hope with the current thread of liberal and progressive theologies. In an age marked by theological and ecclesiological decline, I pray this serves to aid a strong faith with bold resistance toward the distortion of Scripture.
Christianity and Liberalism
To be sure, Christianity and Liberalism sought to expose modernism or liberal theology for what it truly is. Liberalism was not merely another doctrine acceptable within orthodox Christianity, it was a false Gospel. Machen wrote, conveying, “Liberalism on the one hand and the religion of the historic church on the other are not two varieties of the same religion, but two distinct religions proceeding from altogether separate roots.”[19] Christianity and Liberalism covers the controversy, in order: Doctrine, God and Man, The Bible, Christ, Salvation, and The Church. Our aim here is to give a brief word from each chapter.
Doctrine
Considering the doctrine of Scripture, Machen waste no time in bluntly spelling out modernism as an entirely different religion; not merely another doctrinal system among many. He seems to have assumed liberal theology to be a disease sweeping academia, which has sank its teeth into the church through societal integration. Elaborating, Machen wrote, “On the contrary its attack upon the fundamentals of Christian faith is being carried on vigorously by Sunday-School “lesson-helps,” by the pulpit, and by the religious press.”[20] Thus, Machen’s concern consists of purging an infection from the heart of the church’s reception of a disease, as though it were the cure. The deception lies in that liberal theologian’s appeal to Christianity as an experiential life, rather than a set of doctrinal beliefs to live by.[21] Machen points readers to the historical first church as evidence, advocating that whatever life may come from Christianity is foremost, “a way of life founded upon a message… not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.”[22] Therefore, the lives Christian’s live are always in appropriation of Scriptural doctrine first. To abandon doctrine was to abandon the very life by which calls those saved into.
God and Man
In God and Man Machen shows the central purpose of Scripture is the glory of God in the salvation of man.[23]Any system which is opposed to God’s character and nature as revealed by Scripture is bankrupt of true human salvation. The liberal position is to maintain a distance from humanity’s ability to know God, rather, it is by feeling and experience.[24] Knowledge of God, Machen considers, is not the “death of religion,”[25] it is the very basis for knowing the Words of life. After all, Jesus validated knowing God through Scripture for the basis of all living things, including the law of God and His righteousness.[26] Another point which liberal theology seeks to expose orthodox Reformed Theology is to accuse it as purely theoretically. Machen agrees, but not to the expense of ratifying God’s true and righteous God-Word in favor of “practical knowledge” alone.[27] He writes, elaborating, “The very basis of the religion of Jesus was a triumphant belief in the real existence of a personal God… Jesus was a theist, and a rational theism is at the basis of Christianity.”[28] Emphatically, by distorting the character and nature of God, modern liberal theology divorces itself from having a true understanding of humankind. Orthodoxy is not dead because of theological drift; theological drift is dead because it committed theological suicide.
The Bible
Modern liberal theology seeks to dismiss the authority and inerrancy of the Word of God to establish its philosophical positions. Nevertheless, for Christian’s, the Bible is God’s gift to humanity pertaining to the accurate explanation of the character and nature of God, and subsequently, the Bible is the only true message to humankind for salvation. Machen asserts, “According to the Christian view, the Bible contains an account of a revelation from God to man, which is found nowhere else… That revelation concerns the way by which sinful man can come into communion with the living God.”[29] Such a revelation is a gift off God. Furthermore, Machen argues rightly by appealing that discovering the truth of eternity is not in and of itself reception of the revelation as salvific.[30] The liberal notion which submits ancient history as relevant is devoid of the historically eternal message of Christ providentially working in all generations.[31] Therefore, the God-Word which wrought salvation possible, historically, is the same God-Word reaping the benefit of his life, death and resurrection. History past is history present and history future. Modern examinations of human experience do not change God’s undying Words, which before eternity past were approved by God for all generations. Therefore, a “Christian” experience inept of the message of the Bible, in its fullness, is no Christianity at all. Furthermore, “The Bible, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty.”[32] In all its boasting of freedom, modern liberalism has robbed the message of the Bible of its clarion call to freedom in Christ.
Christ
In Christ Machen addresses the message of the Bible, not merely as philosophical theory, rather, the message is a person, and that person is Jesus Christ. He begins by indicating, “in their attitude toward Jesus, liberalism and Christianity are sharply opposed.[33] Over and against the idea that Jesus was merely an example of faith, for the apostle Paul, “He was primarily the object of faith.”[34] Modern liberalism seeks to make Paul out to be fundamentally concerned with Christian imitation, “practical theology,” yet Machen contends that Paul’s primary point is not even our imitation, rather, “Paul, was swallowed up by something far more important still. Not the example of Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus.”[35] Machen thinks it is absurd to think Paul was the first to central his message of the redemptive work of Christ, which is simply not true, as Jesus and the disciples/apostles did so when Paul was still Saul.[36] And had there been a disagreement between Paul and the other apostles there is no way the Jerusalem elders would have commissioned Paul. Machen elaborates, writing, “The facts are really too plain. The whole of early Christian history is a hopeless riddle unless the Jerusalem Church, as well as Paul, made Jesus the object of religious faith. Primitive Christianity certainly did not consists in the mere imitation of Jesus.”[37] Another point of interest lies in what to do with sin nature. Machen, against the pervading thoughts of liberal theology countered their reduction of the weight of sin, concluding, the wrath of God truly is against all ungodly.[38] Modern liberalism paints Jesus as “a mild-mannered exponent of an undiscriminating love,” to which Machen notes, “it was Jesus who spoke of the outer darkness and the everlasting fire, of the sin that shall not be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come.”[39] If every attribute and Word given by Scripture is to be trusted, even the grimness of eternal darkness and fire is to be trusted as definite. Nevertheless, even which such infinitude of understanding the concept of righteous judgment, “Great was the guilt of sin, but Jesus was greater still.”[40]The hope of the Gospel prevails, nonetheless, because Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, was crucified for our sins, and rose from the dead, victorious over sin and death.[41]
Salvation
Simply put, “Liberalism finds salvation in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God.”[42] Though ridicule abound, the propitiatory penal substitutionary atonement is not mere theory, rather, it is central to the truth of the Gospel.[43] Liberal theology renders the cross as an example of the Christian life-metaphorically-Christians need not physically harm their bodies, rather, it is by this example of Christ by which Christians must imitate sacrifice with “practical theology” toward our fellow man. Machen reminds, though, imitating Christ is a fruit of the gospel, and what really happened on the cross was the Christ’ death in our place. We deserved death, he did not.[44] In salvation, God cannot dwell with sin, therefore, the means for which modernism reduced the cross to an example to follow, even imitating the love displayed, God hates sin and requires repentance to enter salvation.[45] He contends, “It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling upon human hearts.”[46] Meaning, Christ death on the cross as an example falls short of the love of God displayed on the cross. They appeal to the love of God by the example, Christianity appeals to the depths of what his propitiatory death on the cross did; namely, penal substitutionary atonement. It is not just what the example of that historical moment influences, rather, the substance is in what it accomplished. And if it only accomplished the example of a remarkable historical figure, the gospel is devoid of its substance. Machen also defends liberal propensity toward dethatching the Gospel from its historicity, writing, “A gospel independent of history is a contradiction in terms. The Christian gospel means, not a presentation of what always has been true, but a report of something new-something that imparts a totally different aspect to the situation of mankind.”[47] Therefore, the message and event of salvation from history’s past accelerates with relevancy to all generations. There is no need to detract its historical moment as something needing revision. The nature of the historical gospel is that it requires a newness of revelation to each passing generation, not a revision to fit the philosophical preferences of a generation at odds with its truth. And each generation is called to “an exclusive devotion to Christ.”[48]Without such a call to exclusive devotion to Christ through His Word, Christianity would be as the liberals perceive, unoffendable. However, this is not the case. It is by this very reason that the Gospel is offensive; Christ calls us to devotion to Himself by His Word. Obedience to His Word separates theology from false philosophical notions.
The Church
In the Church Machen addresses the Scriptural and necessary unity of “the brotherhood of the Christian Church.”[49] Christian’s, at their salvation are not left to their own devices, rather they are inaugurated into the local and universal church. Modern liberalism seeks to equalize man’s essence and substance as commonly the same, without recognition the church as God’s elect people, and the world, who are those outside the faith.[50] And while as a creation all humankind are generally the same, “The true brotherhood, according to Christian teaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed.”[51] Such a brotherhood is inclusive in calling all mankind to salvation and brotherhood, however, Christian brotherhood is exclusive in that it requires salvation in Christ alone, by the God-Word’s means. Liberal theologians seek a man based “practical theology” by which to save the world. Rather, it is by the Word of God, and “The Church is the highest Christian answer to the social needs of man.”[52] The reason the Church fails in social activity is none other than its acceptance and intermingling with the unredeemed in her ranks.[53] Machen names membership and ministry led initiatives being led by non-Christians as the culprit.[54] He then asserts, though we do not presume to know whether liberal Christians are saved, nevertheless, “liberalism is not Christianity.”[55] This separation is not a scourge of bigotry, rather, it is the gift of God to give His children a family with familial purposes in God. The common brotherhood of Christian people worshipping God together through the goodness of His doctrines is where true unity exists. There can be no true fellowship in the Church as the expense of the doctrine of the Church. Jesus calls the brotherhood of the Church to a pure and full devotion to Himself. To intermingle with the world for the sake of peace is a false peace, a false unity.[56]Men who abhor the true doctrines of our God seek not joyful membership as servants of the Church, rather, they lust for positions in ministry to distort even the elect with their false teachings.[57] It must be solidified that the Christian faith is theological, creedal, and organized by and through a message, which is in Christ.[58] Compromising the validity of Jesus’ message to fit a man-centered ecclesiology is false because it distorts God’s salvific message and plan. Though the Church is full of weak Christians who often hurt one another in the process of Jesus sanctifying His Church, the God-Word is the only One capable of leading her to glory. Centralizing good will toward all men equally apart from God’s providential election of the Church by His Word is to dismiss God’s perfect leadership. Modern liberal theology, whether it means to or not, put human wisdom above God’s wisdom for the Church. Therefore, it is certain, a separation between liberalism and the Church is required. A man cannot cling to the doctrines of God and tolerate liberal propaganda which distorts and deceives the brotherhood of the Church.[59] The purpose of the Church is to glorify God rightly in its worship and practice. She cannot honestly glorify God if she seeks to please the opinions of liberal minded men. And while diminishing modern liberalism and her proponents from the Evangelical Church would certainly reduce her ranks, the Church would be all the better for it.[60]
Conclusion
Modern naturalistic liberalism has progressed greatly over the ninety-nine years since Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism was first published. We know from J. Gresham Machen’s biographical sketch, his fight to preserve orthodox Reformed Theology cost him his ranks among Princeton and the Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, we see the goodness of God to prevail over and against the uprising of liberal theology. And while our goal is not the need to start a new church denomination or plant new seminaries every time the church encounters an influx of liberal philosophy, it is our Christian duty to combat such liberal notions with the truth of Scripture. If there is a weakness to be found in Machen’s work, which may be lack of occasion, the Church could learn greatly from Machen’s address with case studies observing real life scenario’s where churches have combated liberalism successfully. It is hard to imagine a more authentic, well thought out rebuttal. Some might say Machen could have gone more in depth in his explanation of liberal naturalism, nevertheless, what is said gives a compelling case to safeguard and protect the church from liberal proponents.
The strength of Machen’s address may be summed up as, “The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: ‘Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again.’”[61] Human goodness, for the Christian is an oxymoron. There is no true goodness in humankind apart from the redemptive work of Christ for salvation. The famous idiom, “If God is good why does He let bad things happen to good people?” loses its luster in reflection of the mercy of God to save sinners from perpetual ruin. Good works outside of Christ, which possess no presence of the work of the Spirit are eternally bankrupt. God does not save by merit, but Christ alone. The doctrines of God are not up for revision, and the true Church, with humility, will seek to purge deception and division from her ranks. Modern liberal theology is a false gospel, treating mankind as the central focus, neglecting the centrality of Christ and His Word, which is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
[1]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. Preface. Kindle Ed. Print.
[2]John Piper. “J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism.” Desiring God, 26 Jan. 1993. Web. 17 Aug. 2022. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/j-gresham-machens-response-to-modernism
[3]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[4]John Piper. “J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism.” Desiring God, 26 Jan. 1993. Web. 17 Aug. 2022. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/j-gresham-machens-response-to-modernism
[5]“J. Gresham Machen: Bio. Banner of Truth, 2022. Web. 18 Aug. 2022. https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/j-gresham-machen/
[6]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[7]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[8]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[9]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[10]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[11]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[12]John Piper. “J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism.” Desiring God, 26 Jan. 1993. Web. 17 Aug. 2022. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/j-gresham-machens-response-to-modernism
[13]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[14]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[15]Ibid., Piper. Web. “Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinist Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence, I never call myself a “fundamentalist.” …what I prefer to call myself is not a “fundamentalist” but a “Calvinist” – that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith” (Ibid., Piper. Web).
[16]John Piper. “J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism.” Desiring God, 26 Jan. 1993. Web. 17 Aug. 2022. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/j-gresham-machens-response-to-modernism
[17]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[18]Ibid., Piper. Web.
[19]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 16. Kindle Ed. Print.
[20]Ibid., Machen. P. 14.
[21]Ibid., Machen. P. 16.
[22]Ibid., Machen. P. 17. “Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first” (Ibid., Machen. P. 19).
[23]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 16. Kindle Ed. Print. “The doctrine of God and the doctrine of man are the two great presuppositions of the gospel. With regard to these presuppositions, as with regard to the gospel itself, modern liberalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity” (Ibid., Machen. P. 46).
[24]Ibid., Machen. P. 46.
[25]Ibid., Machen. P. 46. If the nature of human friendships is thus based upon common interests, which is the sharing and growing of the knowledge of one another, why would we omit this in considering relationship with God (Ibid., Machen. P. 46)?
[26]Ibid., Machen. P. 47. “Jesus revealed, in a wonderfully intimate way, the character of God, but such revelation obtained its true significance only on the basis both of the Old Testament heritage and of Jesus’ own teaching” (Ibid., Machen. P. 48).
[27]Ibid., Machen. P. 48.
[28]Ibid., Machen. P. 48.
[29]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 59. Kindle Ed. Print.
[30]Ibid., Machen. P. 60.
[31]Ibid., Machen. P. 60. “We can make a trial of it,and making a trial of it we discover that Jesus is truly a living savior today” (Ibid., Machen. P. 60).
[32]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 67. Kindle Ed. Print.
[33]Ibid., Machen. P. 68.
[34]Ibid., Machen. P. 68.
[35]Ibid., Machen. P. 69.
[36]Ibid., Machen. P. 70. “Paul was in no disagreement with those who had been apostles before him. Had there been such a disagreement, the “right hand of fellowship,” which the pillars of the Jerusalem Church gave to Paul (Galatians 2:9), would have been impossible.
[37]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 70. Kindle Ed. Print.
[38]Ibid., Machen. P. 71.
[39]Ibid., Machen. P. 71.
[40]Ibid., Machen. P. 71.
[41]Ibid., Machen. P. 77.
[42]Ibid., Machen. P. 99.
[43]Ibid., Machen. P. 99.
[44]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 99. Kindle Ed. Print.
[45]Ibid., Machen. P. 100.
[46]Ibid., Machen. P. 101.
[47]Ibid., Machen. P. 102.
[48]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 104. Kindle Ed. Print.
[49]Ibid., Machen. P. 133.
[50]Ibid., Machen. P. 133.
[51]Ibid., Machen. P. 133.
[52]Ibid., Machen. P. 134.
[53]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 135. Kindle Ed. Print.
[54]Ibid., Machen. P. 135. “The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence with the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core” (Ibid., Machen. P. 135).
[55]Ibid., Machen. P. 135.
[56]Ibid., Machen. P. 137.
[57]Ibid., Machen. P. 138.
[58]Ibid., Machen. P. 139.
[59]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 140. Kindle Ed. Print.
[60]Ibid., Machen. P. 144.
[61]J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009. P. 132. Kindle Ed. Print.