Christianity and Liberalism: Machen's Analysis on the Destinction between God and Man

Hailed by D.G. Hart as the "most important conservative Protestant thinker of the first half of the twentieth century and a guiding light for the first generation of Orthodox Presbyterians," J. Gresham Machen remains a staunch champion of the validity of the Bible. In John Piper's presentation to the Bethlehem Conference for Pastors (1993), the fellow Presbyterian pastor illustrates through J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism how the defender of orthodox Christianity titled his work precisely so, declaring that "liberalism is vying with Christianity as a separate religion." An American Presbyterian theologian and professor of the New Testament at Princeton Seminary, Gresham wrote Christianity and Liberalism written as a response to modernist theology. Published in 1923, the work of Gresham presents how there are varieties of modern Christianity deriving from a historical basis and how a modern offshoot departs from traditional theology and doctrine. Machen details the erroneous progressive synthesis of God as the “father of all,” the rise of pantheism that has replaced orthodox Christian theology in modern churches, as well as the detrimental form of sermons preached without intending to convict sin or express the personal yet distinct relationship between God and man.

Machen specifies how Liberalism inherently separates itself from the root of the historical Church, specifically in how modernists view the nature and relationship of God and man. Piper continues to explain how Machen viewed the negative aspects of modernism being surmised of general traits: a suspicion of the past that is natural in view of the stunning advances of recent decades (science and technological progress), skepticism about truth and a replacement of the true with the category of useful (pragmatism, utilitarianism), and the denial of the supernatural.”[1] As indicated by Machen’s writing, the modernists reinterpret the Bible without necessarily throwing out Christianity; instead manipulating the meanings and reinventing new creeds, symbols and messages to suit their ever changing agenda. Piper further articulates how progressive forms of Christianity differ from orthodoxy; stating that creeds and foundational principles are seen as relative - "if they are useful for one generation, good; if not for another, then they may be exchanged."[2] However, Machen clearly affirms in Christianity and Liberalism that the doctrine of God’s eternal and unchanging nature serve as a presupposition from which the entire gospel clings. As modern liberalism does not acknowledge this aspect, the radical and pragmatic form of Christianity lacks in consistency and fails to encapsulate the physical, spiritual, and historical essence of the Judeo-Christian faith. Machen stresses that liberalism is opposed to God due to the progressive’s very interpretation of Him. He mentions how many churches have leaned towards saying that a conception of God is “unnecessary; [that] theology, or the knowledge of God is the death of religion; we should not seek to know God, but should merely feel His presence."[3] However, emotions do not determine truth or the knowledge of what truth comprises of. Without knowledge of God, there is no basis for religion, Machen argues, as the knowledge of God is the very basis and foundation of the Christian faith. Furthermore, through his discussion analyzing non-theistic propositions, Machen clarifies plainly that the religion Jesus offered was triumphant only because of a “belief in the real existence of a personal God. And without that belief no type of religion can rightly appeal to Jesus today. Jesus was a theist, and rational theism is at the basis of Christianity.”[4]

In light of liberal preachers teaching that God can only be interacted with through Jesus, Machen pours over the Sermon on the Mount, the account of the Prodigal Son, and reflects on the words of the psalmists to show that it is in fact insulting to Christ, not a form of allegiance, to suggest that God could only be made known through the figure of Christ. He intellectually utilizes prominent scriptural passages to expose how Jesus acknowledged that God revealed Himself through nature, through moral laws, and through the biblical text. By suggesting that man can only know God through Jesus dismisses all “real knowledge of God” and despises the intimate character of God expressed through the Old Testament and the revelation which Christ teaching’s brought which further assisted and made complete the testimony of Creator and His creation.

A unique critique Machen offers is commentary on the liberal focus on the “fatherhood of God.” He considers it strange how “modern liberalism is decrying theistic proofs, and taking refuge in a "practical" knowledge while the liberal preacher loves to use one designation of God which is nothing if not theistic; he loves to speak of God as "Father.”[5] Most modern liberals, Machen asserts, do not either use the term literally or do so only when useful, not because of actual theological reasoning regarding God’s station to humanity. He links the usage of such a personal term to that found in other religions and where “father” is used to describe the transcended reality that is more akin to pantheistic or polytheistic inclinations. However, Machen claims that Jesus renewed the meaning of the term and identity of God as “something characteristically Christian”[6] - being “father” to those alone who have been redeemed and have been exclusively made part of God’s family, thus legitimizing their title and position of being known as His children. Rejecting this notion, many liberals do not seem to value or cherish doctrinal creeds, the reality of sin, salvation, and the atonement, but instead are content with the idea of a supposed fatherhood for all humans due to a shared brotherhood. Machen rejects that, stating that the concept of a universal fatherhood is absent in both the Old and New Testament. He dispels the idea that the story of the Prodigal Son proves this bond, continuing to show how the parable displays God’s adoration for a redeemed sinner who has received salvation – Machen dissects the passage to the point of revealing that God does not share this bond with unrepentant sinners, as they are not His children - they are not apart of the family of God. Machen counters arguments of how God cares for all by expressing how God “cares even for those who are not His children but His enemies; so His children, Jesus' disciples, ought to imitate Him by loving even those who are not their brethren but their persecutors. The modern doctrine of the universal fatherhood of God is not to be found in the teaching of Jesus.”[7]

Rejecting this form of doctrine and the demands of redemption, many turn to atheism, paganism, or substitute humanism for Christianity. It is arguable that the modern practice of Christianity is responsible in part due to the rise in atheism. Doctrine, church history, apologetic reasoning, intellectual Christian scholarship and achievement, and tradition are ignored, and are not adequately taught by a large majority of denominations. Followers of Christ profess their adoration for a merciful God while rebuking that mercy by consciously abandoning the standards which they claim to be so dear through lives that are conducted in quite a contrary manner. Machen notes how it is “useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit, if at the same time the occupants of the pews go on taking sin very lightly and being content with the standards of the world.[8] Sin is not seen as sin or the weight of it is instead considered a flippant aspect and an unavoidable measure of being human. The “perfectionism” of the Second Great Awakening which spurred the motivation towards social reform earned Christians lauded praise by how they eliminated intolerable circumstances in the world through the efforts of abolition, suffrage, education, and temperance - rallying first and foremost for such change based on the principles of Christ and the inherent need of a sincere Christian to rise to the standards presented in the doctrine. Though perfection cannot be attained by mere mortals, the lack of attempt towards Christ’s perfection ought to be viewed as inexcusable by those who claim to follow Jesus who specifically calls and equips His "sons and daughters" to live up to such perfection. If sin is not realized, life is conducted in a fashion more like the humanist, pantheistic reasoning described by Machen. Instead, sin is excused on account of the fragility of human weakness and the presumed inability to change upon a conviction of the Holy Spirit to confess contritely, turn from moral failings, and live uprightly. Often, arguments of convivence overrule the high cost of Biblical morality.

Aligned with the severe demands of the Christian faith, Machen stresses in the conclusion of his chapter on “God and Man” how modern preachers attempt to win souls without “requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin.”[9] The preacher preaches about man’s goodness and how Christ’s message is good enough for them, rather than showing the inconsistency of that message with the entirety of Christianity’s foundational principles. Modernist Christianity appeals to modern culture instead of appealing to Scripture or Church history for authority. Out of desperation to be relevant to society, modernists Christians adapt their beliefs to fit the current era. A predominate vein of this progressive type of sermon and ministry lacks conviction and refuses to rage against the detrimental reality of human depravity as did ministers of old. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and fundamentalist preachers like Billy Graham, are spurned as being a source of condemnation instead of seen as ministers presenting the hope available purely due to Christ’s atonement. Ultimately, Machen specifies how such topics are not touched upon as such a mention would lower the pride of man. His work ensnares the folly of human reasoning, advocates how a liberal intellectual orientation skews the Gospel into a very different religion than genuine Christianity, and finally, illuminates how modern liberalism reassures the pride of man that such arrogance is justified.

---

[1] John Piper. " J. Gresham Machen’s Response to Modernism." Desiring God. 1993.

[2] Ibid.

[3] J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 55.

[4] Ibid, 55-57.

[5] Ibid, 58.

[6] Ibid, 59.

[7] Ibid, 60.

[8] Ibid, 67.

[9] Ibid, 68.

Pearl S. Buck - Disillusioned Missionary

Grant Wacker indicates throughout his account of the exploits of West Virginian female foreign missionary to China, "Pearl S. Buck and the Waning of the Missionary Impulse" that missionary fervor fueled by the revivals of the Second Great Awakening were doused by a sense of disillusionment, secularization, and apprehension towards the imperial elements and abuses of the Christian faith which peaked by the 1930s. Coinciding with international militant and economic effects of WWI and the Great Depression, such disillusionment may stem from the fatigue of continual warfare and the insurmountable fiscal and moral cost of unjust bloodshed, rather than a simple attribution to the ineffectiveness of Christian missionaries. Despite external factors, Buck’s reflective account regarding her ministry in China reveals how, though well-intentioned, many American missionaries were obliviously unaware and insensitive to the cultural practices of those they sought to reach. Her commentary and publishing later in life on the effectiveness of American foreign missions is brought to the forefront of conflicting debate that hotly rages today as in Buck’s life – a debate which simultaneously praises and critiques the expanse and benefits of capitalism and Christendom, but a debate nonetheless regarding the demands such a venture cost.

Receiving the Literature Nobel Prize Laureate (1938), Buck’s use of Chinese idioms and Biblical parallels fill her literary fiction, such as displayed through her famed The Good Earth. The novel’s style and intentionality derives from her own experiences growing up in China. Paul Doyle’s analysis regarding her narrative suggests that Buck believed “these good, solid farmers formed the heart of China. Her interest in them as people gave her a starting point, and love and affirmation for the Chinese peasant became one of the principal ingredients of her thought and writing"[1] as well as in her ministry. After reaping the prestige from being the first US woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, the novelist became a recognized political Christian activist who founded the East and West Association “to aid the Allied war effort in Asia by helping Americans understand the culture and concerns of the people of China and India.”[2] She later formed a scholarly movement known as “critical internationalism” – a “perspective working against colonialism and racism in Asia and in the United States during World War II; [an organization which would later] expand that world to include a critique of the Cold War.”[3] Her social activism highlights concerns stemming from her earlier days as a missionary serving in China, bearing witness to the ill effects of racial and national superiority being entwined with the Christian message by well-intentioned missionaries.

Though a controversial public figure, Buck's courageous critiques on imperialism met with admiration and resentment. She functioned as an expert on Chinese diplomacy and internal affairs while also serving as a "popular authority on the truthfulness of Christianity and the validity of the Christian missionary enterprise in China."[4] However, her earlier writings revealed her contempt for the wickedness and depravity she witnessed in Chinese society and especially the "absolute corruption of the official class. Family life riddled with opium addiction, drunkenness, [how daughters-in-law were treated like a slave of the family], foot-binding, and female infanticide."[5] Most missionaries operated for decades in the area in which they were assigned and yet, “the enterprise in which they were involved was heavily influenced by imperialist assumptions regarding the West’s superiority, including ideas about the superiority of women’s status in Western civilization. American Protestants imagined that the United States most closely reflected God’s kingdom on earth and that their country should therefore serve as a model for all the world.”[6] Female missionaries banded together to create the first denominational foreign mission board in 1819 (the General Board) as well as the most successful female agency, the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society, directly formed to aid and assist women in living in scenarios which they viewed as oppressive. Buck’s writing aligned with the accounts of barbarism other missionaries encountered. With renewed justification and a millennial sense of immediacy, they were determined to purge the sinfulness from their lives with the light of the gospel coupled by Western social graces.

Though the evangelistic desire to witness weighed heavily on her mind, the concept that "evangelists focused too much on saving souls and too little on saving bodies"[7] increasingly disturbed Buck and caused her to vocalize the need to first minister to the physical detriments of the people they were trying to convert. The tone of her evaluations changed in the 1930s which showed an appreciation for the distinctiveness of Asian culture as well as China’s development as a nation. Due to this reevaluation, her pen turned toward critiquing the leviathan of Western imperialism as well as the traditional and dogmatic aspects of Christ's followers. Buck emphatically noted throughout her writings of how early Protestant missionaries, “although they produced a good number of conversions, were [ultimately] rejected by the Chinese, especially by the intelligentsia, for they were regarded as imperialistic enforcers of sweeping disapproval of Chinese culture. Those who opposed ancestor worship consisted [largely of missionaries apart of] the China Inland Mission - the largest Protestant mission group. They had received basic theological training and brought with them not only their Christian beliefs but also Western social and cultural symbolism. They sincerely believed that only their religious system was appropriate to express the true Christian faith, and they failed to understand Chinese culture.”[8]

Pearl’s frustration was not unwarranted. Missionary effectiveness in China became dampened by dissident factions which spurred sociopolitical uproars, such as the Taipei Rebellion and seeded other forms of unrest due to the “international treaties imposed on the Chinese, [including] the 1858 Toleration Clauses. These placed not just the missionaries but all Christians under the protection of the foreign powers. While that made persecution less likely, it was a situation open to abuse. Most Chinese viewed westerners as oppressors and had no way of distinguishing missionaries from the rest. In the course of the Boxer Rebellion, which lasted until 1901, 230 foreign missionaries and over 32,000 Chinese Christians lost their lives.”[9] The cost of evangelizing and converting was high for all parties; jeopardizing not only social standing and economic stability, but also one’s reputation as well as life.

However, Buck never rejected the usefulness of foreign missions and greatly admired the first missionaries, realizing their ventures out from European shores and into a vast unknown would understandably be fraught with errors and their practices in great need of revision. She considered figures such as her missionary father, Absalom Sydenstricker, as "willful conquerors, proud and quarrelsome, brave and intolerant and passionate, nonetheless good and innocent because they were blind”[10] to the destructiveness to their ideologue-like nature. Instead, her wrath fumed over the behavior of contemporary missionaries who “seem weak and despicable” in comparison, “shot through with doubt and distrust of themselves and their message."[11] Buck appears to have looked regretfully over the past, disillusioned with the initial approach to missions work as well as the ineffectiveness of current missionaries, but it also can be projected that the famed author and activist came to see to the beauty and purpose of missions, including the movement’s imperfections. Although attacking denominations for their common inability to integrate Christian teaching respectfully through their evangelization methods, Buck clearly asserted that there is indeed a "Case for Foreign Missions," despite offering a disclaimer that the "authoritative, unchangeable, and exactly phrased body of doctrine" may need to become more fluid and that the presentation of the gospel ought to allow flexibility in reaching the hearts of the intended.

---

[1] Paul A. Doyle. "The Good Earth." In Pearl S. Buck, Rev. ed., 29-41. Twayne's United States Authors Series 85. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1980.

[2] R. Schaffer. "Pearl S. Buck and the East and West Association: The Trajectory and Fate of “Critical Internationalism,” 1940–1950." Peace & Change 28, no. 1 (January 2003): 1-36.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Grant Wacker. "Pearl S. Buck and the Waning of the Missionary Impulse1." Church History 72, no. 4 (12, 2003): 856.

[5] Ibid., 857.

[6] Karen K. Seat. Providence has Freed Our Hands: Women’s Missions and the American Encounter with Japan. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2008.

[7] Wacker, 858.

[8] Paul de Neui. Family and Faith in Asia: The Missional Impact of Social Networks. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 2010, 188.

[9] John Pritchard. Methodists and their Missionary Societies 1760-1900. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2013, 125.

[10] Wacker, 872.

[11] Ibid.

Puritan Piety through a Communal Work Ethic

Diligence - Frugality - Faith

Inspired by Charles Cohen’s, “The Saints Zealous in Love and Labor,” this analysis details contrasting scholarly perspectives regarding the Puritan psychology of work. Cohen cites Max Weber’s thesis and mentions how Weber links the practice of piety to the development of capitalism and Western Civilization. Weber suggests that Puritans were largely inspired to fulfill their earthly acts of labor due to a higher sense of moralistic reasoning and virtue. Overwhelmingly, from the writings of John Winthrop, one of the leading founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and other Puritan authors, the majority of New England’s early settlers appeared to have desired to manifest their faith through good works and economic activity, whether as a show of their own piety or due to societal pressures to behave accordingly to the ideals of their religiously-based colony. From Charles perspective, Puritans assumed that if they were not being productive, they were not living up to the standards of Christ and that without labor, the Spirit of God was not being accessed, thus not reflecting a transformed state from sinner to a soul regenerated into active Christian life.

Reminiscent of John Smith’s famously attributed quote – “Those who do not work do not eat” –highly incentivized public activity from all members of Puritan society regardless of class or gender is indicative that new settlements along the Eastern coastline were no longer bound by old European ties to class hierarchy. Additionally, each individual, in order to survive the harsh elements of the New World, appeared compelled to participate and contribute, concepts that were exceptionally relevant to the Puritan way of life, as the common belief seemed to hold that the single action from one of their members could result in either God’s favor or displeasure, indicating that there existed subsequent consequences for either their action or inaction.

Historian Sharon Beder explores how a higher motivation is necessary for the efficiency of modern economics, that being portrayed in the success of capitalism. She states that "modern capitalism, more than mere trading for profit, requires a system of values that revolves around economic meanings and goals." She continues to highlight how the Protestant Reformation brought about "moral support and legitimacy" to settlers desiring to impact commerce and industry - one of the hallmarks of those crossing the Atlantic who were set on exploring and cultivating the relatively unclaimed American continent for their own personal or imperialistic gain.

Intriguingly, a critique of Max Weber's initial projection on how the economic motivations of Puritans stemmed from their Calvinistic theology emerges in the form of Anglican dissent. A contrary opinion posed by C. John Sommerville stands refreshingly aloof compared to the amount of research on early colonial piety during the 1600s. Sommerville argues that Anglicans were far more work-focused and efficient in their enterprises compared to their Puritan counterparts. In “The Anti-Puritan Work Ethic,” Sommerville disputes the validity of other scholars whom he sees as having relied too heavily on Weber's analysis and that consideration ought to be placed on other pieces of literary evidence to support the conjected link between Calvinist doctrine and the compulsive desire to work. He suggests, based on religious books penned by Anglican authors within the 17^th century, that Anglicans instead placed more emphasis upon worldly acts of labor “as a religious duty" in a way that was "integrated with the rest of their theology in a more logical manner than the Puritans." He sees the Puritan motive for work more as a symptom of psychology branching out from a sense of “religious anxiety” instead of acts conducted out of pure devotion.

Sommerville could be right, however, though more detailed and thought provoking due to how he contrasts the deeper theological differences between Christian denominations, it appears as though his argument misses the point – simply because Anglicans may have been more concentrated on work as a stated “religious duty,” this does not discredit the reasons as to why Puritans were motivated to actively act out the will of God. Cannot both sects be equally motivated by economic and religious factors? Even if Puritans were motivated in part by societal pressures they may have felt, especially in light of conformity, intrinsically the Puritan mindset is fundamentally yet enamored with the idea that each believer is responsible in expressing the Spirit of God and His transformational powers within and through their outward show of labor and good works. Through the tenets of the Protestant Reformation, with Luther’s insistence on Sola Gratia - through God's grace alone, the Puritans heartily believed that salvation can only be achieved through the sacrifice of Christ and not through any humanly effort, thus they were further inspired by Christian principles to dedicate their lives to hard work in service of God in addition to a dedicated display of their own personal piety and devotion in an outwardly visible way.

I do not see the conflict here as anyone can be simultaneously motivated by various influences yet still maintain a genuine and sincere conviction towards an original motivating factor, this being God in the instance through our analysis of motivational factors influencing the Puritans. In fact, Christianity revolves around each saint navigating through the diverse influences and responsibilities of life while always bearing in mind Who ought to have the greatest amount of influence in our lives.

Linking Protestant Work Ethic and Capitalism, Max Weber

Thankfully, historian Marilynn Robinson, points out a unique facet of Puritan thinking in her "Puritans and Prigs: An Anatomy of Zealotry" that acknowledges the Christian doctrine of the depravity of man, a notion emphasized quite emphatically by Calvinists from which Puritan methodology strains. She likens a portion of Puritanical society to that of the “National Socialism of Germany” or other fascist communities – “the idea that society can and should produce good people – people suited to life in that idealized society” who must consistently examine whether they and those around them are expressing and living up to that communal standard. However, she retracts that affiliation, suggesting that the Puritans cannot be considered “zealots or Stalinists”, but rather showcases how Puritans have a zealous nature about them only because the passion of these devotees originates from the deep desire to “feel secure in their reasonableness, worth, and goodness,” or rather, to solidly mirror their Christian identity, despite their understanding of flawed human nature. It is actually because of this understanding, Robinson claims, that they are “filled with a generous zeal to establish their virtues through the world of their society with the inspiring hope that this transformation can be accomplished.”

And this leads us back to the beginning of this discussion with the statement Cohen took from Max Weber, suggesting that Puritan motivation for earthly work was uniquely and intimately bound together with their desire to serve and worship God to the utmost of their abilities - a pious expression rooted at the very core of Christian hospitality and compassion which came to greatly influence and alter the course of Western Civilization due to both economic and religious motivating factors.

Link to Commentary Video - Puritan Piety through Work Ethic

Bibliography

Cohen, Charles L. "The Saints Zealous in Love and Labor: The Puritan Psychology of Work." The Harvard Theological Review 76, no. 4 (1983): 455-80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509547.

Fitzpatrick, Tara. "The Figure of Captivity: The Cultural Work of the Puritan Captivity Narrative."American Literary History 3, no. 1 (1991): 1-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/489730.

Harper, Preston. "Puritan Works Salvation and the Quest for Community in "the Scarlet Letter"." Theology Today 57, no. 1 (Apr 01, 2000): 51, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1791712277?accountid=12085.

Hart, Ian. "The Teaching of the Puritans about Ordinary Work." 67, no. 3 (January 1, 1995): 195. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1995-3_195.pdf.

Laird, Pamela. "Selling the Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR."Enterprise & Society 2, no. 4 (12, 2001): 855-7, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/218624952?accountid=12085.

Robinson, Marilynne. "Puritans and Prigs: An Anatomy of Zealotry." Salmagundi, no. 101-102 (Winter, 1994): 36, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/221291588?accountid=12085.

Seaver, Paul. "The Puritan Work Ethic Revisited." Journal of British Studies 19, no. 2 (1980): 35-53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/175492.

Sommerville, C. John. "The Anti-Puritan Work Ethic." Journal of British Studies 20, no. 2 (1981): 70-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/175637.

Winthrop, John. "John Winthrop: A Modell of Christian Charity." Hanover. Accessed September 09, 2016. https://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html.

A Brief Consideration of Charles Cohen’s Thesis - Christianity and the Colonization of British North America

        Charles Cohen presents a contrary perspective regarding the early colonization of British North America in the 17th and 18th centuries, suggesting not that Christianity loomed only to decrescendo ever since the landing of the Puritans and other-like minded dissidents, but instead, presents the case that the faithful pinioned on the periphery of the New World were located in a fundamentally revolving environment that harbored and instigated the expanse of Christendom. Cohen's thesis explores the unique scenario of migrants huddled in an uncharted landscape and endued with the responsibility to organize and structure their surroundings upon ideological concerns, primarily as a refuge from European church and societal corruption, the desire to revive long-held and valued Christian principles, and to function as a successful system of citizens lying outside the boundaries of conventional British civilization. He concludes with the notion that American revivalism ought not to be considered isolated but instead, a complement to the global revival sweeping across the Atlantic from Western Civilization's shore due to the organization of Protestantism from official doctrine to a faith revived by the intensive yearnings of devoted hearts affected by sermons from enthusiastic ministers, such as George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards. Ultimately, Cohen argues that the religiously unassociated as well as the cross-denominational collective of settlers from the British continent were an extent of the church-state system but also a product of their developing environment.

        Charles Cohen, “The Colonization of British North America as an Episode in the History of Christianity,” Church History (2003), 553-568. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4146260.pdf

        Charles Landseer, The Eve of the Battle of Edge Hill, 1642, Google Art Project.

Fury - Film Critique

Set within the onslaught of WWII, Fury provides a practical and raw depiction of warfare and the cruelty of mankind. Highly inappropriate in terms of language and realistic carnage, Fury succeeds as an emotionally striking film designed for the audience to be overwhelmed by shock along with the experience of the characters surviving in a chaotic swirl of savagery, abuse and forgotten morals.

Appreciatively, the historical accuracy of military units and weaponry were utilized as a main element, examples of WWII era trademarks such as grenades, smoke bombs, mortars, rapid fire and a mass of US tanks proceeding 

Allied fire appears as red lasers to assist the audience's sight

in converging columns through a series of hedgerows weeks after the commencement of D-Day. A prominent example of US firepower was displayed through a glimpse of the air force which passed by overhead while a battalion of Sherman tanks led by tank Fury confronted a German Tiger and an SS brigade as the Allied forces strove to conclude the war by subduing town after town as the unit continued to press on into Germany.

Norman's introduction to Don & tank unit: Fury

However, the direction of the plot intended not to glorify the military but to expose trampled virtue. This theme is emphasized through the demoralization of Norman Ellison, a youth who’s loss of innocence is continually stressed throughout the course of the film. Introduced as a bumbling clerk-typist disgusted by injustice, he is swiftly taught a lesson by his commander, Don "Wardaddy" Collier, who physically forces him to murder a captured German POW, an act signifying the first tainting of his character with his first shedding of blood.

Don orders Norman to finish the POW, arguing that war is "to kill or be killed."

From this point, he is further instructed to engage in improper relations with a German girl, the diminishing of their purity, and finally through the manner in which he strikes down his enemies with artillery fire while chanting curses at the oncoming barrage of Nazi forces before his tank. During the finale, his companions entitled him “machine” as that is what he has become, a machine of war devoid of compassion; the young soldier no longer seeing his enemy as a human being but rather as a target to be extinguished for the sole purpose of an end goal swamped with vengeance.

Norman stands atop his gunner hatch

Surprisingly, Fury highlights that it is but a German soldier who is to be merciful upon Norman. Ironically, the soldier appears to be roughly the same age, a fact that not all Germans are monsters and that many are caught up within the throes of war, similarly sharing Norman’s fate. The German’s compassionate gesture harkens the trace of what Norman has lost; that noble former self he had intended to maintain. His inner commitment to displaying justice regardless of the immorality around him is expounded by how Norman’s terrified eyes stare up in desperation at the German soldier who kindly smiles and deliberately chooses to spare the life of the young boy covered in mud and the blood of his fallen comrades.

An impactful theme laced throughout Fury is the portrayal of tarnished morality. This motif is visible in Norman and through the example of a character Boyd Snicknamed “Bible,” a Christian who poses as the moral compass of the tank. Although Bible displays grace and is a channel pointing towards salvation, he additionally serves as an overpowering presence in certain instances, specifically in the scene where he aloofly sits on the tank, refraining from looting while soldiers plunder the captured town and while at the dinner table in the German home. His presence reminds his platoon leader that they have a duty to respond to, one of which does not allow a pretense of peace while at war.



Boyd "Bible" Swan receives orders that Fury is to proceed further into the Rhine

However, Bible’s consequential nature also falters in the face of moral indignity, wherein he remained silent when there were appropriate times in which he should have stood resolutely for an actual execution of ethics instead of standing disapprovingly by as his company devalue and humiliate the German ladies and in another instance when they cuss, jeer and erupt into praise over the massacre of Nazis with the desire to extend their suffering. Ultimately, Bible’s character offered the dim light of salvation and a purpose beyond the harsh reality experienced in Europe, 1945. His unexpected demise could even be argued as a pardon from God, concealing Bible within Himself in order for the Christian to not experience as much pain in his instant death compared to the lingering doom awaiting those remaining within Fury.

I heard the voice of the Lord calling, "Who will go for Us?" And I said, "Send me."

While this film does not receive a high recommendation, as the characters were difficult to find endearing, I appreciated the director’s attempt to portray a realistic account. Despite the artistic intention, I found myself hardly caring whether they survived for I had become disenchanted by their adverse behavior, deplorable logic, inhumane treatment of women and thoroughly disgusted at the militant culture that subjected its own soldiers to promote such brutality to simply prove the point that its either your death or your enemy’s in war, regardless of how practical and base that notion is.

Conclusively, Fury presents a harsh exposé of American soldiers during WWII – showing how a fierce, typically drunk and foul-mouthed, mismatched band of soldiers were able to loosely unify around the tank that they were willing to sweat, bleed and die within in order to protect one another and preserve the pursuit championed by the Allied forces. The film climaxes with Norman being heralded as a hero yet such praise starkly resonates with the fact that they are indeed heroes, but heroes that compromised their morality for the sake of unrealized ideals accomplished through anything but just means due to succumbing to animalistic tendencies and debase ethics justified by war. Their sacrifice, no matter how gallant a demise, does not justify previous brutality and the battalion’s blatant disregard of righteousness.