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.

American Missions Distinctly Rooted in New Divinity Theology

Within The New Divinity and the Origins of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions David W. Kling proposes that the theological influences of the New Divinity movement of the early 1800s intricately inspired the formative nature of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) - a concept Kling asserts is unchallenged by scholars of American religious history as the doctrinal guidance of Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins, and other Congregational ministers visibly are rooted in the origins of the Protestant missionary movement. Congregational ministers and heirs of Edwardsean thought became known as proponents of the New Divinity movement and initiated evangelical pursuits of mass conversions to the Protestant religion. An early model for missionary work can be detected through the urging of the Great Awakening theologian's Life of Brainerd which emphasized the reality of redemption and man's need to encounter that grace. Following Edwards' example, Kling suggests that Samuel Hopkins took the basis for mission work further by taking the abstract ideal of heart conversion and forming sincere spiritual change into a matter of practicality narrowed on "self-denial for the greater glory of God's kingdom and the betterment of humankind."[1]

The essence prevailing Edwards’ New Divinity resulted in a “distinction between natural and moral inability,” found especially in his well-regarded Freedom of the Will which promoted the idea of human agency and cultivated a sense of urgency in believers to demonstrate that "faith as doctrine is incomplete without fruition in experience,"[2] convictions which motivated hopeful missionaries to fulfill the calling to convert nations yet deaf to the Gospel as per Edwards’ emphasis upon genuine expressions of religious affections. These sentiments would rekindle during the Second Great Awakening and future Holiness Movements as Protestantism submerged America’s culture in a spiritual landscape.

Despite the demise of famed Great Awakening ministers, the revivals of the 1800s saw an influx of youthful converts desiring to enter missions. Upon fervent prayer meetings and intimate gatherings, many attendees of Second Great Awakening camp revivals associated as New Divinity believers who committed their lives to spreading the Gospel across domestic, cultural, and political borders. A famous example of such commitment by youth attending one of these revivals was the declaration of Samuel J. Mills Jr. to fulfill the spiritual calling resonating within him and his peers at Williams College despite enduring balmy weather which ushered the group to take shelter beneath a haystack while they continued formulating ways in which they could realize this vision. The Haystack Prayer Meeting served as the fundamental instance where the foreign missions movement initiated by American Protestants spread from Christian students to other seminaries and eventually into formal organizations and mission associations. Student involvement, interest, and assistance from congregational bodies resulted in the official opening of the ABCFM in 1810. Within the span of two short years, five missionaries from this religious collective ventured to the vastly pagan "jewel of the British empire:" India while others turned their gazes inward to reform American society.

This initial launch sounded the beginning of American missionary work which found its basis primarily in the contributions and labor of Congregationalists from New England though the activities of Presbyterians, Reformed Dutch, and other denominations which came to join the ranks of the new ABCFM. Kling wisely discerns that though Edwards and Hopkins offered theological insight, they did not purposefully intend nor supply doctrinal rationale as to how Protestants were to engage in international or domestic ministry. Kling paints them as transitional figures as Edwards functioned prior to the growing consciousness of the importance of mission work, and though Hopkins was aware of the underpinnings of this movement through New Light influence through the Great Awakening of the 1740s, he did not live to witness the effects occurring in the generation proceeding after these two influential theological figures ascended into glory. Instead, Kling argues that the following generation "extended and applied the implicit missionary theology of Edwards and Hopkins into an explicit theological justification for the creation of the ABCFM."[3] It is also an ironic fact that the man known as the "father of the foreign missionary work in Christian America” is often overlooked, as Samuel J. Mills Jr. never served as a foreign missionary, yet he arguably did more to pioneer the advance of mission work compared to any contemporary. A grand student leader and religious evangelical promoter, Mills organized the ABCFM, was "instrumental in the formation of the Foreign Mission School,"[4] and dedicated to educating converted native peoples so that they could serve as ambassadors for Christ amongst the members of their culture in their homeland.

Though he did not travel abroad, Mills’ domestic influence punctured the heart of Congregational worship as he served as a pioneer missionary in the western territories of America and posed as an abolitionist who desired to rectify the institution of slavery, to educate, and to include African Americans as equal members of church and society. Suitably, Mills’ lobbying for educational reform assisted evangelization at home and abroad with the opening of missionary societies and organizations which funded the distribution of Bibles, construction of Sunday schools, the traveling expenses and lodging for preachers and missionary families, and the establishment of education societies to lessen the “cost for ministerial training for pious young men aspiring to the ministry.”[5] Thus, Mills operated as a fundamental catalyst of the foreign missionary movement which aligned with the broader scope of the antebellum reforms sweeping throughout the initial stages of the nineteenth century.

The New Divinity or Edwardsean or Hopkinsian mindsets relied upon by Mills and other Congregationalists surged the movement forward as many felt compelled by the idea of a "disinterested benevolence," rather that the believer ought to be willing to be damned for all eternity if one’s individual sacrifice of their salvation could bring glory to God. Though perhaps misguided regarding how the redemption and salvation of all mankind remains at the heart of the Christian doctrine, those of New Divinity theology stewed in Edward’s “grand providential/millennial scheme” believed that revivals “signaled the dawn of the millennium – a new age [emerging] through natural means as an outpouring of God’s Spirit manifested in religious activity – [denoting how] Christian activity was a precondition [and that Christians ought to be] engaged in benevolent activities, social reform, and missionary outreach”[6] to usher in the second coming of Christ.

Fundamentally, Kling’s work explains the contributions of multiple New Divinity members, such as Moses Hallock, William Richards, Ammi Robbins, and the impact of sermons such as Edward D. Griffin's "The Kingdom of Christ" which called for the fulfillment of the Great Commission which supported Mills’ efforts to gain sponsors and volunteers to sustain and expand the ABCFM. However, Kling primarily constructs a narrative regarding an exploration of Edwardsean theology, Mills' exceptional organizational skills and passion which propelled the success of the "Society of the Brethren" (a secret missionary society) and the ABCFM as an institution and movement, as well as how the historian analyzes the overall influence of New Divinity thought on the mission field. Intriguingly, Kling reiterates how most scholarship lacks the assertion that New Divinity is the stirring cultural factor entwined with the Edwardsean tradition that prompts the development of American missions. In fact, Kling boldly claims that New Divinity ideology should be considered a "widespread movement insofar as it promoted a theology and directed that ideology into organizations bent on influencing the nature of society"[7] – the origin of missionary societies being firmly ingrained within New Divinity doctrine, revivalism, and an intricate series of voluntary associations which were distinctly New Divinity-based and whose members adhered to New Divinity doctrine which served as the motivation and justification for domestic and international American missions due to a benevolent view of depraved mankind – a step away from prior forms of Calvinist theology as though a new light had dawned in order to lead America and the world closer toward the Divine being and the awaiting millennium.

---

[1] David Kling, “The New Divinity and the Origins of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.” Church History (2003): 792.

[2] Michael Haykin, “All the Dogmas of the American School” in Great Admirers of the Transatlantic Divinity, 201.

[3] Kling, “The New Divinity,” 793.

[4] David Raymond, "The Legacy of Samuel J. Mills Jr." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 38, no. 4 (2014): 207.

[5] Ibid,.

[6] John Hubers, "Making Friends with Locusts: Early ABCFM Missionary Perceptions of Muslims and Islam, 1818-50." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 33, no. 3 (2009): 151.

[7] Kling, 794.

Image (c) Salem Harbor, Caravan, 1818.

An Appeal to Heaven – Baptist Isaac Backus' Struggle for Religious Liberty in the Revolutionary Era

Converting to Christianity in 1741 as an effect of the Great Awakening, Isaac Backus became a separatist Baptist Congregationalist and head of the Warren Association of Baptists who championed religious freedom in America. Through the work of his piestic writings and petitions to Congress and State legislatures, the Massachusetts Baptist pastor vied for the separation of church and state in order to ensure and protect individual liberty of consciousness.

An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty (1773) poses as one of Backus’ most renowned works that details legal, Biblical, and Enlightenment rationale to support his position which stresses the importance of true liberty, the role of the government, and the differences between civil and ecclesial structures. Backus clearly defines the distinction between each government type, stating that "all acts of executive power in the civil state, are to be performed in the name of the king or state they belong to; while all our religious acts are to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus." He goes onto say that due to the nature of civically elected systems, “putting any men into civil office is of men, of the people of the world; so officers have truly no more authority than the people give them."[1] Justification for the Patriots’ separation from the mother-country fell along these lines, with Colonies abject to Britain’s refusal to acknowledge their rights as Englishmen or fairly represent the interests and concerns of citizens.

Similarly, having endured decades of religious persecution due to the arrangement of state-sponsored churches, Backus and other religious dissenters saw hypocrisy in how Revolutionaries decried civil subjugation while spiritually subjugating their fellow compatriots who theologically differed from the traditional Congregational and Anglican Church structure which dominated Colonial religious life.

Backus’ Appeal to the Public illustrates that “while his thoughts were similar to John Locke, he maintained a distinctly pietistic interpretation of man's natural obedience to God. [The two ordained systems of government held] purposes and natures [which] were distinctly different and should never be linked together.”[2] He relied upon Biblical narratives and the sovereign examples of David and Solomon to reveal that God erected covenants with nations and that the creation of laws ensured the protection of liberty. However, Backus appealed to notions of God’s ordained order, the distinctive nature of man’s depravity, and how though the Revolutionary Era’s mindset adhered to the idea that civil liberty ought not to be denied, he proposed that religious liberty shared the same fundamental importance.

Patriotic cries against a neglectful sovereign were validated however, when the “same cry was raised by Backus and the Baptists in protest against religious taxes imposed by civil government, it was perceived as an unnecessarily divisive ploy by fanatical rabble-rousers.”[3] Due to their association with other groups desiring religious freedom, such as pacifistic Quakers, Baptists were viewed as non-patriotic and their petitions, letters, and public addressment of religious concerns were largely ignored. However, Backus managed to utilize the “rhetorical strategies of the more elite New England revolutionaries in support of the minority opinion that their right of conscience, like the patriots' rights with Great Britain, had been unjustly denied.”[4] Through the War for Independence, Backus preached to the Continental Army, met with Congressional members, and traveled about the colonies sermonizing the importance of religious autonomy. He consistently readdressed the Baptist “position in relation to the colonial bid for freedom emphasizing that religious taxation without representation was just as unjust as civil taxation without representation.”[5]

Historian Thomas Kidd eloquently specifies how the “evangelical tradition supplied spiritual propulsion to the Patriot cause that was unsurpassed by any other element of Patriot ideology"[6] Though differing doctrinally, these “individuals of such varied theological strands [agreed] that religion had political implications.” Communal convictions and adherence to republicanism strengthened both the religious and irreligious alike as a core principle acknowledged was that the “disestablishment of state churches was the best means to promote religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. Following the war, evangelicals and rationalists often joined politically in agreement on the public role of religion and that the government had no business legislating religion.”[7] Dissenters amicably account that the “war in Virginia was not only a war against British rule but also a war against religious establishment. Religious liberty was not the result of republicanization, but republicanization was the result of the concerted efforts by dissenters to gain religious freedom from the establishment in exchange for mobilization against the British.”[8] Furthermore, the advance of religious liberty in America is revealed to be “not inevitable, nor was it the natural outcome of the American victory in the Revolution. It had to be won, not from Britain per se, but from the established church which was at war with the British. Thus, religious liberty was won through petitions and negotiations more than on the battlefields of the Revolution.”[9] Despite theological disputes, Backus supported the Revolution, and by relying on Biblical and civil arguments vindicating the rights of man, he became known as the “most forceful and effective writer America produced on behalf of the pietistic or evangelical theory of separation of church and state."[10]

Ultimately, political change ushered in a reconfiguration of state and church structure in America. As new state constitutions were designed and adopted, a more inclusive awareness emerged towards dissenters as sects, such as the Baptists, were gradually accepted into the fold of mainstream Protestantism. The voluntary service of dissenters during the Revolution additionally aided their plight, as the conscientious objectors to imposed theocracy had proven themselves loyal to the new republic through blood and Christian fervor. The hold of Anglican and Congregational churches slowly began to weaken, yet it was not until the mid-19^th century that the final ties between church and state were officially severed.[11]

---

[1] Isaac Backus, “An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty,” 1973.

[2] Sewell Jr. and Edward H. “Isaac Backus’ Plea for Religious Freedom, 1770-1776.” Today's Speech 23, no. 2 (1975): 39-47.

[3] Ibid., 45-6.

[4] Ibid,.

[5] Sewell Jr. and Edward H. “Isaac Backus’ Plea for Religious Freedom,” 44.

[6] Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution (2010): 94.

[7] Matthew Hill, “God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution.” Fides Et Historia 43, no. 1 (2011): 93-4.

[8] John A. Ragosta, Wellspring of Liberty: How Virginia’s Religious Dissenters Helped Win the American Revolution and Secured Religious Liberty, 2010.

[9] John D. Wilsey, “Wellspring of Liberty: How Virginia’s Religious Dissenters Helped Win the American Revolution and Secured Religious Liberty.” Fides Et Historia 45, no. 1 (2013): 156-7.

[10] William G. McLoughlin, “Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism: Pamphlets, 1754-1789,” (1968): 1.

[11] Sewell Jr. and Edward H. “Isaac Backus’ Plea for Religious Freedom,” 45.

Image - Isaac Backus, Government and Liberty Described and Ecclesiastical Tyranny Exposed, 1788.

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.