His Word Today

“And what does one find? Alas, too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of meditation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin. Such is the sermon. And then perhaps the service is closed by one of those hymns breathing out the angry passions of 1861, which are to be found in the back part of the hymnals. Thus the warfare of the world has entered even into the house of God, And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace.” – J. Gresham Machen

What was the immediate result of J. Gresham Machen’s definitive stand against the modern, liberal movement in the church that prompted him to write Christianity and Liberalism? Was he lauded by his colleagues and the administration of Princeton? Did the Presbyterian Church USA praise him for his insightful and prophetic work? Unfortunately, no.

“Machen’s book was hated by theological liberals and scathed by them in reviews. Curiously enough, the intellectual moderns, such as Walter Lippmann and H.L. Mencken, respected the book and recognized the validity of Machen’s arguments. For fundamentalists, the book added steel to their spine as they continued the fight for the faith,’ explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

What happened to Machen after his book? Providentially, Machen was scorned and rejected. Personally and professionally he lost much, but the Lord caused all these things he experienced to work together for good.

“In 1929, Princeton Theological Seminary reorganized the board and took a turn directly toward liberalism, effectively forcing Machen out. He crossed the Delaware River and opened Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia,” states Nichols.

“When Machen organized a new mission board because the denomination’s mission board had shifted the focus from gospel proclamation to social transformation, he was defrocked. In 1936, he led in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”

By the end of 1936, Machen was an exhausted man. He colleagues at Westminster urged him to take a well-earned rest. Machen, with no wife or other mentors, refused to do so. He traveled to North Dakota to speak at a church that was part of the fledging denomination. While there, Machen became ill and hospitalized with pneumonia. On January 1, 1937, Machen died.  

His last written communication was to his Westminster colleague John Murray. Machen wrote, “I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”  

Why is it important for the evangelical church to remember the life and ministry of J. Gresham Machen? Why is Christianity and Liberalism as relevant today as it was when first published?

It is because the battle with the modernist, liberal movement within the church in the early part of the 20^th century is the same battle being fought in the early part of the 21^st century. The postmodern culture is presently seeking to persuade churches, and para-church ministries such as Christian colleges and theological seminaries, to strategically change and adapt their biblical vision and mission of ministry in order to remain culturally relevant and financially solvent. It is this spirit of fear of being out of touch with the times that ironically resulted, and will result, in evangelicalism losing its churches and academic institutions they misguidedly seek to keep. As Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian Church USA died, so will other academic institutions, denominations and churches that follow this same path.

How may we fight this growing trend today? We must do what Machen did and what the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to do.

²⁴ “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, ²⁵ correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, ²⁶ and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24–26 ESV)

Secondly, instead of solely focusing on strategic planning, let’s resolve to strategically pray. Pray that the Lord will keep us faithful to His Word (2 Timothy 4:1-5). Pray that evangelicals will not conform to this world and the culture (Romans 12:1-2). Pray that that we will not be weak and fearful, but rather be strong and courageous (Joshua 1:1-9). Finally, pray that we heed the example and wisdom of a valiant 20^th century warrior who fulfilled the words of 2 Timothy 4:6-8.

“Is there no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’ name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation from nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget the passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.” – J. Gresham Machen

Soli deo Gloria!

“It has just been observed that Christianity, as well as liberalism, is interested in social institutions. But the most important institution has not yet been mentioned– it is the institution of the Church. When, according to Christian belief, lost souls are saved, the saved ones become united in the Christian Church. true Christians must everywhere be united in the brotherhood of the Christian Church.” – J. Gresham Machen

Christianity has never been about the individual believer doing his/her own thing without any concern for other believers in Christ. The common adage that “I don’t need the church. I can individually worship God wherever I am” is foreign to the New Testament Scriptures. On the contrary, not only is each believer joined to the universal church at conversion but also joined to the local church by a biblical vision and mission. One of the best New Testament Epistles on this subject is Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians.

Machen held a high view of the church. This means that he not only strongly believed in the church’s importance in each believer’s life, but also that the church was indispensable. The church was not just an organization like any other social and civic group. Rather, it was/is a spiritual organism. In short, the church was/is the New Testament temple of the living God (Romans 8:9-11; I Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20; Ephesians 2:19-22; I Peter 2:4-5).

The liberal concept of the universal brotherhood of man was superseded, in Machen’s perspective, by the biblical doctrine of the brotherhood of the redeemed. It is the communication and embracing of the Gospel that will solely, and ultimately, change a society for the better.

“It is upon this brotherhood of twice-born sinners, this brotherhood of the redeemed, that the Christian founds the hope of society. He finds no solid hope in the improvement of earthly conditions, or the molding of human institutions under the influence of the Golden Rule. These things indeed are to be welcomed. They may so palliate the symptoms of sin that there may be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produce conditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospel message; they are even valuable for their own sake. But in themselves their value, to the Christian, is certainly small. A solid building cannot be constructed when all the materials are faulty; a blessed society cannot be formed out of men who are still under the curse of sin. Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed,” explained Machen.

Machen believed the greatest threat to the church’s vision and mission was not from forces outside of the church, but rather from those within its fellowship. Much like the Apostle Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28-31) and the warnings from the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) and Jude (Jude 3-4), Machen sounded a warning because of what he observed in the Presbyterian church of his own day.

“The greatest menace to the Christian Church today,” he wrote, “comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.” Consequently, “a separation between the two parties in the church is the crying need of the hour.” Machen’s “straightforward” and “above board” appeal earned him the respect of “friendly neutrals” (as the secular journalist H.L. Mencken described himself as he followed the debate closely),” states John R. Muether, professor of church history and dean of libraries at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Fla.

The doctrinal divide that fractured the church a hundred years ago is occurring a hundred years later. Personal experience has replaced biblical exposition. Personal preferences have replaced personal commitment to the Scriptures. Tolerance of unbiblical opinions and fellowship have replaced faithfulness to objective, biblical doctrine.

“Countervailing appeals to preserve the unity of the church obscured the issues that Machen laid out, and such ecclesiastical pacifism provided neither lasting peace nor unity,” states Muether.  

“Nothing engenders strife so much as a forced unity, within the same organization, of those who disagree fundamentally in aim.” Tolerance of doctrinal deviation is “simple dishonesty,” wrote Machen.

What impact did Christianity and Liberalism have on the church and upon Machen himself? This is what we will begin to examine when next we meet.

Soli deo Gloria1

“It has been observed thus far that liberalism differs from Christianity with regard to the presuppositions of the gospel (the view of God and the view of man), with regard to the Book in which the gospel is contained, and with regard to the Person whose work the gospel sets forth. It is not surprising then that it differs from Christianity in its account of the gospel itself; it is not surprising that it presents an entirely different account of the way of salvation. Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak at all of “salvation”) in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God.” – J. Gresham Machen

An individual’s view of doctrine, God and man, the Bible, and Jesus Christ will correspondingly impact their view of salvation. It is simple cause and effect. One’s view of the former will directly impact their view of the latter.

The doctrine of salvation is God delivering the sinner from the penalty, power and eventual presence of their sin by sovereign grace alone, through God-given faith alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. The good news, or the Gospel, of salvation heralds four basic truths: (1) God Exists; (2) Sin Exists; (3) Salvation Exists; and (4) One Savior Exists; Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18).

A main opponent of the biblical Gospel, birthed by the 18^th century Enlightenment and 19^th century Higher Criticism, is known by various names: the modernist liberal movement, the social gospel or social justice. It is an effort to usher in the kingdom of God through human sourced social action.

“World War I (1914-1918) turned Europe on its head, brought crashing down the optimism of the Enlightenment, and ushered in post-Enlightenment Europe. In America, however, young people undeterred by the war set about attempting to bring to earth the kingdom of God through social action. They called their message “the social gospel,” and its principal preacher was Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), who endeavored to address the poverty he found in Hell’s Kitchen (in New York) by preaching a “gospel” of social improvement and working toward bringing about the kingdom of God on the earth through social action. This was their definition of salvation,” explains Dr. R. Scott Clark, professor of history at Westminster Seminary, CA.

Many 20^th century American social programs sought to do the same. These included The New Deal, The Great Society, the War on Poverty, Welfare, Occupy Wall Street, Wokeism, and Black Lives Matter.

Machen understood that salvation of and by man, socially or spiritually, cannot accomplish its goals. It reduces the plight of mankind by trying to eliminate materialistic poverty. True deliverance from sin, and its residual impact, must come solely from God.

The rejection of the Gospel by the fallen world culture is nothing new. The Apostle Paul encountered opposition to the good news of salvation by the Greek/Roman culture of his day.

1 Corinthians 1:18–31 (ESV) says, “¹⁸ For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

²⁰ “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. ²² For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

²⁶ “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. ²⁷ But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; ²⁸ God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ²⁹ so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. ³⁰ And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹ so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

“It is true that the Christian gospel is an account, not of something that happened yesterday, but of something that happened long ago; but the important thing is that it really happened. If it really happened, then it makes little difference when it happened. No matter when it happened, whether yesterday or in the first century, it remains a real gospel, a real piece of news,” explains Machen. “The happening of long ago, moreover, is in this case confirmed by present experience. The Christian man receives first the account which the New Testament gives of the atoning death of Christ. That account is history. But if true it has effects in the present, and it can be tested by its effects. The Christian man makes trial of the Christian message, and making trial of it he finds it to be true. Experience does not provide a substitute for the documentary evidence, but it does confirm that evidence. The word of the Cross no longer seems to the Christian to be merely a far-off thing, merely a matter to be disputed about by trained theologians. On the contrary, it is received into the Christian’s inmost soul, and every day and hour of the Christian’s life brings new confirmation of its truth.”

Soli deo Gloria!

We confess the mystery and wonder
of God made flesh
and rejoice in our great salvation
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

With the Father and the Holy Spirit,
the Son created all things,
sustains all things,
and makes all things new.
Truly God,
He became truly man,
two natures in one person.

He was born of the Virgin Mary
and lived among us.
Crucified, dead, and buried,
He rose on the third day,
ascended to heaven,
and will come again
in glory and judgment.

For us,
He kept the Law,
atoned for sin,
and satisfied God’s wrath.
He took our filthy rags
and gave us
His righteous robe.

He is our Prophet, Priest, and King,
building His church,
interceding for us,
and reigning over all things.

Jesus Christ is Lord;
we praise His holy Name forever.

Amen.

The Word Made Flesh is the 137 word Ligonier Statement on Christology. It contains twenty-five articles concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. Why is such a statement necessary in the 21^st century when you consider the church creeds from previous centuries?  

“Our post-Christian era is an era of confusion. It is also an era of the rise of Islam on the one hand and the rise of the “nones” on the other—the nones being those who are entirely religiously unaffiliated. It is an era of pluralism, of many voices that affirm many truths; some may pretend not to care about truth at all. This confusion can be found both outside and inside of the church,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The status of the church today parallels the church in J. Gresham Machen’s lifetime. It was a period of modernist liberalism; found both outside and inside the church. Truth was becoming subjective with many abandoning objective, propositional and biblical truth. This conflict was certainly joined regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ.

“Three points of difference between liberalism and Christianity have been noticed so far. The two religions are different with regard to the presuppositions of the Christian message, the view of God and the view of man; and they are also different with regard to their estimate of the Book in which the message is contained. It is not surprising, then, that they differ fundamentally with regard to the message itself. But before the message is considered, we must consider the Person upon whom the message is based. The Person is Jesus. And in their attitude toward Jesus, liberalism and Christianity are sharply opposed,” explained Machen.

The main point of contention between liberalism and Christianity was whether believers in Christ were to solely focus on the example of Christ or to have faith in Christ as justifier, redeemer and the reconciler of sinners to God the Father (Rom. 3:21-26).

“The truth is, the witness of the New Testament, with regard to Jesus as the object of faith, is an absolutely unitary witness,” stated Machen.

“The Jesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher of righteousness, no mere pioneer in a new type of religious life, but One who was regarded, and regarded Himself, as the Savior whom men could trust.”

“But by modern liberalism, He (Jesus) is regarded in a totally different way. Christians stand in a religious relation to Jesus; liberals do not stand in a religious relation to Jesus– what difference could be more profound than that? “The modern liberal preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith. The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus,” continued Machen.

Machen contended that the liberal view of Jesus was not historical or biblical. Jesus was not just a man who had a Messiah complex, but rather was the incarnate God/Man who truly was Messiah.

Second, Machen also stated that the liberal view was faulty regarding problem of sin. The moral example of Jesus does not solve the problem of man’s sinful condition or how Jesus was able to provide sinners salvation from the penalty, power and eventual presence of sin.

“The benefits of that saving work of Christ, according to the primitive Church, were to be received by faith; even if the classic formulation of this conviction should prove to be due to Paul, the conviction itself clearly goes back to the very beginning. The primitive Christians felt themselves in need of salvation. How, they asked, should the load of sin be removed? Their answer is perfectly plain. They simply trusted Jesus to remove it. In other words they had “faith” in Him,” stated Machen.

“Here again we are brought face to face with the significant fact which was noticed at the beginning of this chapter; the early Christians regarded Jesus not merely as an example for faith but primarily as the object of faith. Christianity from the beginning was a means of getting rid of sin by trust in Jesus of Nazareth.”

We must correctly understand who Jesus Christ is. It is a matter of life and death.

Soli deo Gloria!

“People hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that they love more than the truth. They love the truth when it shines warmly on them, and hate it when it rebukes them.” – Saint Augustine of Hippo

J. Gresham Machen engaged the modern liberalism of the Presbyterian Church in a battle for objective, propositional and biblical truth. The so-called indifferentists increasingly dominated Princeton Seminary. These were not liberals or even modernists, but rather moderates who wanted everyone to just get along. They championed unity instead of truth. They held a compromising attitude by allowing the modernist, liberal presence to seize leadership; not only at Princeton but also in the Presbyterian Church USA.

“The moderates were driven by an almost desperate sense of maintaining unity, cultivating an environment of tolerance – except, or course, of the hard-liner fundamentalists,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

Ultimately the issue at this time was about authority and not tolerance. Who has ultimate authority in the church, and para-church organizations, remains the question throughout generations? It is a dispute over the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do the Scriptures alone possess the ultimate and divine standard for the faith and practice of believers in Christ? Or can the organized church, or para-church organizations such as a seminary, supersede the Scriptures with an authority of their own?

The battle that increasingly and theologically burned in the Presbyterian Church and Princeton Seminary in the 1920’s, continues to spread a century later in the Christian Reformed Church, the United Methodist Church and the churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The battle for the Bible rages on.

“As Machen famously observed, theological liberalism was no upgraded form of Christianity but an altogether different religion seated in the naturalist/humanist doctrines of the day,” states Dr. David B. Garner, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.    

“Machen ably exposed the new religion, its new dogma, and its self-appointed authority. It differs from Christianity in its view of God, of man, of the seat of authority and of the way of salvation.”

Machen contended, as should we, that Scripture alone is the final seat of authority. God inspired it (2 Timothy 3:16-17), God reveals Himself in and through it (2 Peter 1:19-21), and the believer in Christ is sanctified by it (Psalm 1; 19; 119; John 17:17; Hebrews 4:11-13).  

“Armed with the divine Word, Machen spoke with keen insight, sincere compassion, and disarming clarity. He challenged liberalism’s dogmas: its repudiation of the supernatural, its sinful decimation of sin, its arrogant bluster over the ultimate goodness of mankind, its perverse eclipse of historic theology behind a mirage of heartwarming tolerance, and its crafty turning of Jesus into a guru rather than God. Rather than Rome’s magisterial authority, the reigning voice of the day was theological liberalism, founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men,” explains Dr. Garner.

Sentiment replaced Scripture. Therefore, the Bible could mean whatever anyone wanted it to mean. Biblical definitions and doctrines were no longer important or necessary. The church strove for religious exploration and experience, but not dogma. Machen exposed this cunning and pernicious deception.

“Let us not deceive ourselves. A Jewish teacher of the first century can never satisfy the longing of our souls. Clothe Him with all the art of modern research, throw upon Him the warm, deceptive calcium-light of modern sentimentality; and despite it all common sense will come to its rights again, and for our brief hour of self-deception—as though we had been with Jesus—will wreak havoc upon us the revenge of hopeless disillusionment,” wrote Machen.

While the fallen world, and the apostate church, cries freedom, they willingly submit to a cruel and evil master. The deceived fall prey to the same deception that befell the man and the woman in Eden (Gen. 3:1-21).

“Emancipation from the blessed will of God always involves bondage to some worse taskmaster. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God’s word is life. Dark and gloomy would be the world, if we were left to our own devices, and had no blessed Word of God. The Bible, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty,” explained Machen.

Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God–
Naught else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.

I’ll trust in God’s unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!” ― Martin Luther

Soli deo Gloria!

“To despise doctrine is to despise the Word of God.” – R. C. Sproul

“False teaching is easily identified by the fact that it is willingly received by all and is to everyone’s liking.” – John Calvin

“Holy Scripture is the highest authority for every believer, the standard of faith and the foundation for reform.” – John Wycliffe

Chapter Two of J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism addresses the biblical doctrine of God and Man. Our view of God will determine our view of man. Likewise, our view of man will determine our view of God. Both theology (the study of God) and anthropology (the study of man) are mutually dependent.

“The crisis of modern humanity is found in the rupture between anthropology and theology, between the study of human beings and the study of God,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.  

“When our story is told in isolation or divorced from the story of God, then it indeed becomes, as Shakespeare’s Macbeth noted, ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’ If we are considered without reference to God, we become a ‘useless passion’ as philosopher John Paul Sartre declared,”

A useless passion is human life characterized by intense emotions which accomplish nothing. It is a striving in futility because life, without God, or a limited God, results in meaninglessness.

Machen recognized that modern religious liberalism undermined the need for a knowledge, or conception, of God. The liberal argued that God does need to be known from Scripture. Mankind just needs to feel the presence of some so-called deity; in a preferably vague and general sense. It was this growing perspective in the Presbyterian church of Machen’s day that caused him great grief.

“Liberalism had erased the Creator-creature distinction that is so fundamental to true Christianity. It had instead produced a pantheistic God who is simply part of the “world process.” God was no longer a distinct being; His life was in our life and our life was in His life,” explains Old Testament scholar Dr. Jonathan Gibson.  

“Modern liberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing. It tends everywhere to break down the separateness between God and the world, and the sharp distinction between God and man,” stated Machen.

Machen stressed the importance of acknowledging the immanence but also the transcendence of Almighty God. God is holy (Isaiah 6:1-7) Machen understood and it was this truth that he believed the modern liberal church had rejected. This resulted in a misunderstanding of mankind’s lost condition and along with this a personal consciousness of sin. Man was now viewed as morally good and no longer radically depraved. As one church recently posted on its marquis, “God Thinks You’re Fabulous.” This was the perspective of the modern liberal church of Machen’s day, and also today’s postmodern liberal church.

What are the two foundational truths concerning God and man? How are believers in Christ to understand the gulf that exists between the two?

First, there is the Creator/Creature Distinction. This is revealed in Genesis 1-2. Man is not the Creator, God is. God is infinite, man is finite. God is eternal, man is temporary. God is unchangeable, man is in constant change or flux. God possesses life in Himself while man receives life, in all its forms, from God. God is immortal, while man is mortal.

Second, there is the Holy/Sinful Distinction. This is a serious and present reality but one which the modern liberal church dismisses with a cavalier attitude.

The only message that effectively and truthfully addresses this issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has justified, redeemed and reconciled sinners by grace alone, through faith alone by the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. This truthful message is the only hope for the fallen world and the compromising, liberal church.

Soli deo Gloria!   

“It is better to be divided by truth than united in error.” – Dr. Steven J. Lawson

Chapter One of J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism addresses the subject of doctrine. Not just doctrine in general, but biblical doctrine in particular.

What is doctrine? Doctrine (διδασκαλία; didaskalia) is instruction and teaching contained in, and communicated from, God’s Word, the Bible (I Tim. 1:10; 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16; Titus 1:9; 2:1; Heb. 6:1).  

It has become popular among churches, and church leaders, to abide by the maxims “Deeds not Creeds” and “Doctrine Divides, but Love Unites.” The perspective is that how we live for Christ is far more important than what we teach about Christ. The ultimate goal is that we all get along with one another. In other words, fellowship and experience is more important than objective, propositional and biblical truth. Machen encountered this perspective in the theological liberalism of his day.

“At the outset, we are met with this objection. Teachings, it is said, are unimportant; the exposition of the teachings of liberalism and the teachings of Christianity, therefore, can arouse no interest at the present day. Creeds are merely the changing expression of a unitary Christian experience, and provided only they express that experience they are all equally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as far removed as possible from the teachings of historic Christianity, and yet the two might be at bottom the same,” stated Machen in explaining religious liberalism.   

Machen understood that at the heart of theological liberalism was a hostility to biblical doctrine. He argued that liberalism had its own doctrine, as previously expressed in this brief article and summarized by the phrase “the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.”

What modern liberalism rejects are the doctrines contained in Scripture and in the historic creeds of the church. Liberalism believes that God is not understood but experienced. God is not knowable but felt. Therefore, there can be no objective, absolute truth claims. Experience is supreme. Machen understood the ramifications of this perspective.

“That meaning is perfectly plain. The objection involves and out-and-out skepticism. If all creeds are equally true, then since they are contradictory to one another, they are all equally false, or at least equally uncertain. To say that all creeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, is merely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago was regarded as the deadliest enemy of the Church. According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience, but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.”

Machen contended that Christianity was a doctrine and not just a life. The Christian life was rooted and grounded in biblical doctrine. To say otherwise was to be radically false. Machen contended that Christianity could be subjected to historical investigation regarding its origin.

“Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, of the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. As an historical phenomenon, it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence. The question of what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.”  

Machen argued that the Christian movement was never just a way of living in the modern sense. It was never about moralism. Rather, it was a way of life founded upon a message. Christianity has never been about what Jesus would do, but rather what Jesus has done. Christianity was not based upon mere emotions, or a program, but rather upon an account of facts. Christianity was based upon doctrine. This doctrine begins in Genesis 1:1 and concludes in Revelation 22:21 and is sustained by all points in between.

“The primitive Church was concerned not merely with what Jesus had said, but also, and primarily, with what Jesus had done. The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with that event went the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine. These two elements are always combined in the Christian message. The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. ‘Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried’ – that is history. ‘He loved me and gave Himself for me’—that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church.”

Machen contended that this was to be the Christianity of the twentieth century. This is to be the Christianity of the twenty-first century and beyond.

Soli deo Gloria!   

“In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” – J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism is a relatively short book. My Kindle edition is only 94 pages. Machen concisely presented his support of orthodox Christianity in just six chapters, along with an introduction. The chapter titles include the following: (1) Doctrine; (2) God and Man; (3) The Bible; (4) Christ; (5) Salvation; and (6) The Church. Today, we examine Machen’s introductory thoughts.

From the outset. Machen sought to be conciliatory but not compromising with those with whom he disagreed. He stated that, “Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it always benefits in the end.”  He understood that he would be praised, and persecuted, for what he wrote. Ultimately, his focus was on the ultimate goal of defending orthodox Christianity. It was a worthy goal. It still is.

Machen did not ignore the changes that had occurred in civilization and society. He acknowledged that modern inventions and industrialism created a new world. To isolate and ignore this was unthinkable.

With the rise of the modern scientific age, Machen understood that the past would be scrutinized and subjected to what he called a searching criticism. He sensed that with the embracing of the present, this coincided with a rejection of the past. He knew that the church would face such an examination and searching criticism for “no institution has based itself more squarely upon the authority of a bygone age,” wrote Machen.

“We are not now inquiring whether such policy is wise or historically justifiable; in any case the fact itself is plain that Christianity during many centuries has consistently appealed for the truth of its claims not merely and not even primarily to current experience, but to certain ancient books the most recent of which was written some nineteen hundred years ago. Inevitably, the question arises whether first century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-century science.”   

This was the problem facing the modern church in Machen’s day in the twentieth century. It remains the problem facing the modern church in our twenty-first century day and time.

Machen’s overall thesis in Christianity and Liberalism was the relation between Christianity and modern culture and whether Christianity could be maintained in a scientific age. Machen understood that this was what modern liberalism sought to answer. However, Machen believed that by abandoning the truth of biblical doctrine, modern liberals had given themselves over to the enemy and that there could be no compromise with those who had done so.  

“Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no peace without victory; one side or the other must win,” stated Machen.

Machen criticized modern liberalism in two areas. First, on the grounds that what they were doing and teaching was unchristian or un-doctrinal. Second, that what they were doing and teaching was equally unscientific. Machen’s primary concern and emphasis concerned the former issue and not the latter. He was fully persuaded that the true church was more than capable of warding off what he called the assaults of modern unbelief.

“In showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all. On the contrary, it may appear incidentally, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding off the assaults of modern unbelief,” explained Machen.

Machen wondered that in the midst of all the achievements of modern life, had mankind lost its soul? Was there some lost secret that would restore to mankind the glories of the past? Machen knew there was.

“Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not the religion of the modern, liberal church, but a message of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth once more in God’s good time, in a new Reformation, and bring light and freedom to mankind,”

“By showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.”

Soli deo Gloria!  

“In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here, as in many other departments of life, it appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be the hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending.” – J. Gresham Machen

The 1922-1923 academic year was a busy one for J. Gresham Machen. Along with his teaching responsibilities, he was also involved in various speaking engagements, Bible studies and writing projects. His publications included two books: New Testament Greek for Beginners and Christianity and Liberalism. Both works remain in print.

The content of Machen’s various addresses included such topics as What is Christianity, The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and Is Christianity True. These messages would comprise the foundation of his seminal work.

“With Warfield’s passing, and others in the fundamentalist camp consumed with issues of eschatology or revivalism or cultural issues such as Prohibition, it fell to Machen to offer the scholarly defense of Christianity,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The theological liberals of Machen’s day argued that Christianity needed to adapt to modern times or it would find itself out of step. In other words, the Gospel would not be in conformity with the prevailing worldview of life and living. Things have not changed much in a hundred years.

One such liberal, Professor Shailer Matthews in his book The Faith of Modernism, wrote that the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the God-Man must no longer be believed. Other biblical doctrines that were to be rejected included the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

While there were many other individuals and institutions opposed to biblical Christianity at this time, none was as prominent as Pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). Born in Buffalo, New York, Fosdick graduated from Colgate University in 1900 and from Union Theological Seminary in 1904. He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1903 at Madison Avenue Baptist Church in New York City. He served in several churches and ministries until he became the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Manhattan in 1918. Fosdick was not only a charismatic personality, but he also had the support of America’s richest man, John D. Rockefeller.

In May 1922, Fosdick preached the sermon Shall the Fundamentalists Win in which he supported the theological liberal modernist position. He rejected the virgin birth of Christ as truth and consequently the deity of Christ. He rejected the orthodox and biblical Gospel. He did not believe the Bible to be the literal Word of God.

“He saw the history of Christianity as one of development, progress, and gradual change. Fundamentalists regarded this as rank apostasy, and the battle-lines were drawn,” writes one historian.

Fosdick’s Christianity is best summarized by Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962). In his book The Kingdom of God in America (1937) Niebuhr criticized the liberal social gospel. He described its message as “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Machen loved biblical doctrine. He loved the truth of God’s Word and the biblical God of truth. He could not sit idly by while apostasy was proclaimed. He summarized his orthodox thoughts in Christianity and Liberalism. A survey examination of Machen’s book will be our focus in the articles to follow.

Soli deo Gloria!