J. Gresham Machen: Christianity & Liberalism

Posted By Jesse Owens on Feb 10, 2014 | 2 comments

“Christianity is a way of life—not a religion.” This is the mantra of many Christians today. Some prefer a tame, non-doctrinaire Jesus—one who is more akin to a teenage boyfriend than a suffering servant or a conquering king. Maybe this is overstated, but it certainly rings true that there is a modern tendency to sentimentalize Christianity by acting as if it has been resurrected from an ancient time capsule and is of no import to modern ethical and social issues. In this way, we prove to be children of the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment (ca. 1650-1800) signals a period of time in which the way people viewed both the world and themselves changed. The period witnessed heightened trust in human reason and doubt in humanity’s ability to know God objectively through divine revelation. Experience became the accepted form of revelation and repeatable experimentation the path to true knowledge. The rational mind had little room for dogmatic claims about God that could not be proven by a scientific method. Christianity was in need of saving. Or so it seemed.

Some sought to save Christianity from Enlightenment philosophies by ridding it of doctrine that couldn’t accord with rational thought or explanation. This approach is commonly known as “Liberalism.” Though it certainly existed prior to the early 1900s, Liberalism manifested itself more fully in the American Church during this time, ultimately dividing entire denominations. Liberal theologians, such as Harvard theologian W.W. Fenn (1862-1932), were convinced that Christianity and Liberalism could co-exist—forming a Liberal Christianity of sorts. However, Princeton New Testament scholar, J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), argued that Liberalism and Christianity could not co-exist, as each was opposed to the other.

This article will focus on Machen’s response to early twentieth-century Liberalism. His response came in the form of his classic work Christianity and Liberalism (1923). Using Fenn’s “Modern Liberalism” (1913), I will explain some of Liberalism’s major tenets [1].

Scripture

To understand Liberalism, we must first understand that no tradition or text was beyond its critique. Fenn unreservedly writes, “Sincerely respecting the past but positively refusing to be under its domination, the Liberal deems no belief or rite too sacred for investigation, or rejection if it commend not itself to his intelligence and moral sense” [2]. In other words, even the most essential Christian beliefs must be discarded if they do not accord with human reason.

Liberalism’s view of Scripture helps clarify how Liberals arrive at many of their conclusions. “It is no wonder, then,” says Machen, “that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon Scripture. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men” [3]. As Machen explains, the differences are found in the foundation. It should be no surprise then that Liberalism abandons Christianity’s core tenets. Let’s examine some of those tenets.

Jesus and Doctrine

Did Jesus teach the core doctrines of historic Christianity? Liberalism says, “No.” Fenn writes,

That the Man of Nazareth said nothing about the cardinal doctrines of traditional Christianity is now pretty generally admitted; but having made its appeal to the Jesus of history, it is now triumphantly proclaimed that Liberalism must take the full consequences of that appeal [4].

These “full consequences” include the assertion that Jesus’ life was made up merely of exemplary events and deeds without reference to any particular doctrines. In other words, we might pattern our lives after Jesus’ life, but His life was not accompanied by any specific doctrines to which we must assent. Liberalism’s program for saving Christianity has obliterated doctrine.

Is Liberalism right? Did the early church construct doctrines entirely foreign to Jesus’ teachings? Machen rejected such suggestions, holding that the events in Jesus’ life were always accompanied by doctrine. In his words, “The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with the event the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine” [5].

Some might object, claiming that the early church’s teaching of a doctrine does not necessarily mean that Jesus Himself taught it. But there’s a problem with such an objection: Jesus often interpreted the meaning of His life’s events Himself. Machen writes, “But when He gave an account of the meaning of the event, no matter how brief that account may have been, He was overstepping the line that separates an undogmatic religion…from one that is rooted in the significance of definite historical facts” [6]. Jesus’ interpretation of events is dogmatic according to Machen.

Man and Salvation

The Church has almost universally agreed upon mankind’s sinful nature and need of redemption through Christ’s work. Liberalism doesn’t agree with this view of human nature or salvation. “Salvation,” writes Fenn “is an inward process by which the divine in man works itself free, not an event supernaturally effected” [7]. Liberalism, therefore, asserts that man already possesses the necessary means for salvation within himself. Man is not in need of a Savior or redemption. Salvation, according to Liberalism, is simply the release of a suppressed good from within.

Machen is clearly aware of this: “Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak of ‘salvation’) in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God” [8]. Christianity holds that salvation is an act of God accomplished through Jesus Christ in true, historical events—namely, the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. And these events were by no means merely exemplary.

The crucifixion is an event with doctrinal significance. As Scripture says, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pt. 2:24). Machen echoes Peter, “For clearly if Christianity is anything it is a way of getting rid of sin” [9]. Liberalism says that Christ’s death was a great example: Christianity, that His death, resurrection, and ascension were necessary for our salvation.

Jesus’ Divinity

If man is not depraved and the Bible cannot be trusted, then Jesus Himself is not beyond Liberalism’s critique. Jesus is history’s greatest example of human living, but He is not God incarnate. Liberalism’s Jesus is the benign sort of man who lived well, but taught nearly nothing. Jesus must conform to modern New Testament scholarship—not the other way around. “If New Testament scholarship obliges him [the Liberal] to change his view of Jesus,” writes Fenn, “he will do so, with regret it may be, but without reluctance or fear….If Jesus was not the sort of man he has thought him, he is quite ready to think him the sort of man history shows him to have been” [10]. Put simply, Jesus’ identity can be changed with the stroke of a scholar’s pen.

But surely we’ll have all sorts of problems if Jesus’ life was nothing more than an example for us, right? Machen explains: “The truth is that if Jesus be merely an example, He is not a worthy example; for He claimed to be far more” [11]. In other words, Jesus cannot be the greatest human example in history if His claims were not true.

Fenn goes so far as to say that Jesus’ “apocalyptic hopes” were in vain, and that this somehow creates a stronger kinship between the modern Christian and Christ. The true Christian knows that it is not enough to feel a strong kinship with an immanent Jesus, because mankind is also in need of a transcendent Savior. The Liberal sees no need for a transcendent Jesus because he sees no need for a Savior. Jesus is our exemplary brother, and nothing more. “Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, a Saviour: liberalism makes Him an example for faith, Christianity the object of faith” [12].

Conclusion

Machen’s premise is that Liberalism and Christianity are different religions altogether. “Liberal Christianity” is not a possible category. His assessment is correct. Liberalism is nothing like Christianity because it is founded upon an entirely different premise. Christianity treasures the Bible’s richness through careful study, while Liberalism puts it through litmus tests to check its validity. Why do Liberals do this?

Liberalism, quite often, attempted to protect Christianity from Modernism’s attacks. In a sense, Liberalism was an attempt to save Christianity through examination, deconstruction, and reconstruction. To some this may sound wicked, and to others, noble. The real issue though is that Liberalism is not an attempt to find truth, but to remove the Gospel’s offence and foolishness. “So modern liberalism,” writes Machen, “placing Jesus alongside other benefactors of mankind is perfectly inoffensive in the modern world. All men speak well of it. It is entirely inoffensive. But it is also entirely futile. The offence of the Cross is done away, but so is the glory and power” [13]. In removing the Gospel’s offence, Liberalism obliterates its power to save. By eliminating Christ’s glory through redemption, Liberalism proves to be anything but Christianity.

_______________________________________

[1] The words “Liberal” or  “Liberalism” throughout this article are directed at the teachings of theologians in the early 1900’s.

[2] W. W. Fenn, “Modern Liberalism,” ed. The Divinity Faculty of the University of Chicago, The American Journal of Theology (University of Chicago Press) XVII (1913), 510.

[3] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009), 67.

[4] Fenn, 513.

[5] Machen, 25.

[6] Ibid., 28.

[7] Fenn, 512.

[8] Machen, 99.

[9] Ibid., 77.

[10] Fenn, 510.

[11] Machen, 74.

[12] Ibid., 82.

[13] Ibid., 105.

The best way to stay up-to-date with HSF

SUBSCRIBE!

You have Successfully Subscribed!