I recently finished reading Christianity and Liberalism (Machen, J. Gresham; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009). Before I begin my analysis, a brief history of the author and the purpose of the book may be in order. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was a Princeton Theological Seminary professor who caused great consternation due to his resistance to the liberal tendencies of the day. When he deemed that Princeton was being lead “inexorably to a sentimentalized religion that had nothing to do with the God of the Bible or, indeed, with real life,” he departed to founded Westminster Theological Seminary (near Philadelphia) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (The above quote comes from the Foreword to this new edition, written Carl R. Trueman the Vice President for Academic Affairs at Westminster).
What led to the book being originally published in 1923? To understand the time, there was a division in the Presbyterian Church between the Fundamentalist and the Modernist factions. Machen did not fall into either camp. He viewed the Fundamentalist position as lacking an appreciation for scholarship and based on false pietism. (Machen was not a smoker but, like C.H. Spurgeon, saw the value of a good cigar). Machen viewed the problem of the Liberal/Modernist position as taking the history and meaning of the Gospel and trying to make it more palatable to the more progressive elements of society. Christianity and Liberalism was based on a sermon he delivered and subsequent article he wrote to demonstrate the flaws of the Modernist position.
Machen starts from the premise that the Modernist position placed emphasis on advances in science and understanding and viewed “truth” not as absolute, but as pragmatism- viewing an acceptable outcome as more productive. While this may be troubling, it was the Modernist tendency to discount Biblical miracles as fiction based on science and the redefinition of Christian understanding that most troubled Machen.
The overarching theme is that the Modernist Christian use Christian vocabulary and ideas, but their meaning to the Modernist is entirely different from the meaning of the Orthodox position. And therein lies the problem. The Modern church uses the trimmings of Christianity, but for fear of seeming unsophisticated, minimalizes or discounts the essential meaning of Christianity. Orthodox essentials such as the inerrancy of scripture, the Virgin birth of Jesus, vicarious atonement, etc., are discarded as superstition or ignorance.
Machen’s analysis of the Modernist movement is coherent and thoughtful. His premise is not based on a straw man easily defeated, but by careful examination of the Modernist theology. Machen articulates the reasons that Modernist Christianity has developed not from Christianity, but as its own separate religion. He does this through a logical progression of the “if…, then…” type. Machen takes the dogma of the Modernists and, through careful analysis, demonstrates how their beliefs are not supported by the Christianity they seem to proclaim, but are in direct conflict with Christianity. Machen starts in the area of Doctrine and develops the argument through key areas of Christianity, pointing out the hazards and pit-falls along the way.
In the end, although written nearly one hundred years ago, Machen is prescient in his analysis. The so-called “Main Line” denominations have wandered down the Modernist path. One only need to bring up the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, “[The Holy Scripture] being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” (6.008). I have heard in churches who purport to follow the Westminster Confession, as it regards certain New Testament scriptures, “Well, Paul said that, so we don’t really rely on it.” Machen seems to have proved his point by such examples now common in churches today. That is why it is so important to read Christianity and Liberalism.
To
be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment