YOU might be the only Gospel people ever know

Recently, I blogged on the BBC series ‘Reverse Missionaries’, involving three pastors from the developing world who came to the United Kingdom — inspired by 19th century British missionaries — to spread the Gospel message.

At the weekend, I watched the third programme which saw a female pastor, Kshama Jayaraj from Mumbai, travel to the (Protestant) Shankhill Road area of Belfast to the Townsend Street Presbyterian Church.

By the way, if you have never seen the length of the ‘Berlin Wall’ dividing the Protestant and Catholic areas, you will be amazed (from 13:30 to 15:15 minutes with narration from the Presbyterian pastor, the Revd Jack Lamb). Pastor Kshama said, ‘This looks like a war zone.’

Although I did not agree with all of Pastor Kshama’s methods of evangelisation, I was struck by something she said, which was

You might be the only Gospel people ever know.

This means that practical help and support are vital to maintaining a Christian community. I believe, along with Pastor Kshama (the ‘K’ in her name is silent, by the way), that we have forgotten the importance of dropping by to say hello and to ask whether we can lend help or encouragement.

Of course, this will not be a route for everyone to take, but even amongst our neighbours and oft-frequented shopkeepers (including people behind the till), service engineers, builders or couriers, surely we can do our bit to be friendly and Christlike. Perhaps a bit of conversation, empathy and a kind word when we see that someone is having a hard day can do wonders to further our message of Christian love of which the Apostle John wrote so much.

The programme’s narrator told us that 45% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 in Northern Ireland have never attended a church service. Pastor Kshama, an Evangelical, tried to reach out to a youth expelled from school for good and who had been spending the subsequent time — two years — at home doing nothing. She offered him a Bible, which he abjectly refused. He said that he had no belief in and no time for God.

A Protestant youth worker said that God, Jesus and the Church mean little to the youth in the Shankhill Road. It also appears the same is true for their Catholic counterparts in the Falls Road area. Pastor Kshama visited a girls’ centre where the teenagers politely objected to her admonition that people should have only one sexual partner in life.

The episode’s climax was of a teenage couple with a two-year old child going to the Townsend Road Presbyterian Church — Pastor Kshama’s sponsor congregation — to have their child blessed.  Yes, blessed, not baptised, because the young parents did not want any baptism.  Kshama, in a home visit, gave the toddler’s mother a Bible to read. The girl was quite pleased saying, ‘Well, she’s not full on all the time about God’.

Pastor Kshama’s inspiration was a young Presbyterian, Amy Carmichael, the daughter of a wealthy mill owner who ministered as a young woman to female linen mill workers in Belfast before travelling to India to spend the rest of her long-lived ministry among young women. In fact, the Evangelical church in Belfast which she founded in the 1880s, Welcome, still exists today in the appropriately named Cambrai Street near the linen mills.

Miss Carmichael was born in 1867 and died in 1951. Fortunately, the programme was able to interview two of her last converts, now elderly women, who considered her a mother and were firmly committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The programme told us that Miss Carmichael prevented a number of young girls being sent to Hindu temples where they would have ended up in prostitution. This is further evidence that children are ‘poison containers’ wherever they live.

However, wherever we are, we would do well to remember not only during Holy Week but beyond that we are responsible for spreading the Gospel.

As Pastor Kshama says, we might be the only Gospel the unchurched ever know. So, please join me in making it a grace-filled one.

Notes on American fundamentalism — pre-1920

Over the past week I have been reading and rereading Roger E Olson’s blog, now added to my blogroll.

Dr Olson puts paid to the notion that all pietists are anti-intellectual and ignorant of Church history. Whilst I do not agree with everything he says, his posts make me think.

This site has forensic studies of Arminianism, pietism, evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

One of the problems which Christians and non-believers have is where to place theologians on a ‘right-middle-left’ spectrum, as Olson describes it. I’ve run across this on a variety of Christian fora, Puritan Board among them. People go through a ticklist of stances, which were much different in the 19th century than they are now. In fact, we have moved further to an obscurantist fundamentalism which didn’t exist in the early days.

It is no wonder that Christians get frustrated with various points of view which they consider embarrassing. It should come as no surprise that prominent atheists take issue with us when we seem to detest any form of intellectual or scientific enquiry. We’re either knee-jerk in promoting social justice or virulently anti-science. Most Westerners equate the word ‘Christian’ with ‘bumpkin’. Where are the great minds of Christianity? They must be out there, but we really need William F Buckley Jrs in Catholicism, Calvinism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism to re-establish us as thinkers.

When Christian fundamentalism started, it was a reaction to secular ideas originating in the West which spread quickly because of affordable newspapers and less expensive books. The average person then began to know more about what was happening in the world.  The 19th century Catholic popes predicted that the rise of Marxism in Europe would destroy not only the Church but the traditional family. They were not wrong.  Pope Pius X declared Modernism a heresy in 1907; he rightly believed that Catholics following social movements would place more faith in them than in Christ Jesus. The Catholic struggle against Modernism was more political than theological.

For Protestants, Modernism posed more of a scientific issue, especially with regard to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Theologians who believed in the primacy of Scripture took issue with others who wanted to reconcile science with the Bible. The ‘fundamentalist’ Protestants believed (rightly) that the more the Church gravitated towards Modernism the less people would believe Holy Scripture.

Olson writes (emphases mine):

A close inspection of liberal Protestant theology and Catholic Modernism reveals that a basic impulse in their creation was to make conflicts between science and Christianity impossible. I believe it is evangelical theologian William Abraham who said that liberal theology was so afraid of being kicked in the ditch by modernity that it jumped there to avoid the pain of the kick! Liberal theology did not so much deny traditional beliefs as relegate all doctrines to the realm of expressions of religious feelings or ethics. The “moralizing of dogma” was the catch phrase for the Ritschlian tendency to ignore doctrines it could not put into the service of ethics.

The main reaction to liberal theology in the nineteenth century was Protestant Orthodoxy as represented by Hodge. Hodge insisted that Christianity is primarily a matter of factual revelation and that Christian theology is simply correctly organizing the facts of the Bible into a coherent system. He explicitly compared theology with science in that regard. For him the Bible is to the theologian exactly what nature is to the scientist—a “store-house of facts.” He adopted Scottish Common Sense Realism, an Enlightenment philosophy, to help his project of rescuing Protestant Orthodoxy’s status as a rational science. (He even went so far as to say that the credibility of revelation is subject to reason.) The way Hodge avoided conflicts between theology and science was by accommodating to the “material facts” of science and rejecting anything science “discovers” that he could claim is mere “theory” insofar as it conflicted with his interpretation of Scripture.

Olson is referring to Charles Hodge, one of the Princeton Theologians (sometimes called ‘Greats’) — a handful of devout Presbyterian clergymen and thinkers of the 19th century into the early 20th century. Hodge — President of Princeton Theological Seminary (1851 – 1878) — would be decried today for many of his stances, not just biblical inerrancy.

Hodge thought that Darwinism was not only atheistic but too neat a theory. However, it’s worth pointing out the following:

While he didn’t consider all evolutionary ideas to be in conflict with his religion, he was concerned with its teaching in colleges.

Meanwhile, at Princeton University, its President, James McCosh, attempted to reconcile evolution with God’s order of the universe:

He thus demonstrated that Darwinism was not atheistic nor in irreconcilable hostility to the Bible. The Presbyterians in America thus could choose between two schools of thought on evolution, both based in Princeton. The Seminary held to Hodge’s position until his supporters were ousted in 1929, and the college (Princeton University) became a world class center of the new science of evolutionary biology.^[5]

The debate between Hodge and McCosh exemplified an emerging conflict between science and religion over the question of Darwin’s evolution theory. However, the two men showed greater similarities regarding matters of science and religion than popularly appreciated. Both supported the increasing role of scientific inquiry in natural history and resisted its intrusion into philosophy and religion.^[6]

Therefore, it would be difficult to dismiss Hodge as what we would label today as a fundamentalist — obscurantist — theologian. Olson tells us:

Hodge was clearly influenced by modernity as he treated theology as a science in the modern sense … He explicitly appealed to modern natural science as the model for theology and used Scottish Common Sense Realism to the fullest.

Common Sense Realism was a product of the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment.

However:

It greatly influenced conservative religious thought and was strongest at Princeton Seminary until the Seminary moved in new directions after 1929. The Princeton theologians built their elaborate system on the basis of “common-sense” realism, biblicism and confessionalism.^[2] James McCosh was brought from Queen’s College, Belfast, to Princeton College’s Chair of Moral Philosophy and Presidency because of his book “The Method of Divine Government”, a Christian philosophy that was precursory to Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” (1865). The Princeton Theologians followed McCosh to adopt a stance of theistic evolution. They heavily influenced John Gresham Machen (1881–1937), a leader of the Fundamentalists in the 1920s. McCosh’s goal was to develop Princeton as a Christian university in North America, as well as forefront intellectual seminary of the Presbyterian Church. The faculty of the College and Seminary included both evolutionary thinkers and non-evolutionary thinkers. Much evangelical theology of the 21st century is based on Princeton theology and thus reflects Common Sense Realism.^[3]

So, by these standards, Hodge and subsequent Princeton Theologians — the last of whom was B B Warfield (1851 – 1921)* could be considered as moderates. B B Warfield has come under attack by today’s Calvinists for his acceptance of a form of evolution. Wikipedia even acknowledges this by saying:

Warfield’s view of evolution may appear unusual for a conservative of his day. He was willing to accept that Darwin‘s theory might be true, but believed that God guided the process of evolution, and was as such an evolutionary creationist.

Olson cites a number of other theologians in addition to Hodge who are equally difficult to pigeonhole. He concludes:

The traditional “right to left, left to right” spectrum for categorizing theologians and theologies was problematic from the start. It began as a way of categorizing nineteenth century theologians and it was tied to modernity. Theologians were placed on it according to the placer’s judgment about the theologians’ accommodations to or rejections of modernity. That spectrum didn’t ever work well, but it became especially problematic in the twentieth century as many theologians no longer responded to modernity. It still works only for theologians and types of theology that clearly and unequivocally respond to modernity either though accommodation or reaction. A completely separate spectrum tied to postmodernity might be helpful for categorizing SOME theologians IF “postmodernity” ever becomes a clear category. But there will probably never be a time when one spectrum works for every theologian. It wasn’t true in the nineteenth century and it isn’t true now and it will almost certainly never be true.

Therefore, Christianity is hardly as black and white as its 20th century obscurantists claim. I have read Calvinist sites which say, ‘Beware of B B Warfield — he accepted evolution!’ To them, that makes everything Warfield ever taught or wrote an error.

It’s quite sad, really, that we are becoming as insular as another world faith. Unfortunately, we are teaming up with that faith in mutual ‘ecumenical’ endeavours, as in the cessation of tobacco use by professional baseball players.

How pathetic.

At the risk of losing some readers, I shall state plainly that I could never have married a young-Earth (six 24-hour days) creationist. That said, I believe that God is not only our Father but the Author of all creation. As with the Real Presence in Holy Communion, how He did it is not for me to know, just for us to believe it is so.

———————————————————————————–

* Some, like I, believe that John Gresham Machen was the last, although he was never Principal or President of Princeton Theological Seminary.

Tomorrow: Fundamentalism after 1920

A closer look at the War of Independence

May I take this opportunity to wish all my American readers — wherever they are in the world — a happy Independence Day.

School history no longer being what it was, it seemed apposite to refresh our memories or, for younger readers, add a few complexities to the history behind the War of Independence.

The original, thirteen colonies were a diverse group.  Colonists settled them for different reasons, therefore, each one ended up with a distinct character. Some were founded for religious freedom, others for trade opportunities. Geographically, the terrain and climate shaped commerce and society. Some colonies were more supportive of their homeland than others. They were not universally one in mind and spirit. Furthermore, not everyone perceived a common enemy — Great Britain and King George III.

It is regrettable that a larger number of Christians in America lack an understanding — therefore, an appreciation — of what the Patriots went through to gain the colonies’ independence.  I was sorry to read some months ago that John MacArthur — old enough to know better — said that America succeeded despite her ‘rebellion’, citing Romans 13.  (Yes, I believe that MacArthur shows an unbelievably good understanding of the Gospel, despite his belief in ‘leaky Dispensationalism’ [a weakened perspective of the Rapture], as I, along with many confessional readers, am an amillenialist.)  A surprising number of Protestant laymen in America agree with MacArthur before admitting, ‘Well, to be truthful, I don’t know much about our history’.  Wow.  Let’s hope they’re not homeschooling!

When I was growing up, making a statement such as MacArthur’s would have landed you a thump — physical or verbal.  It would have been preceded by, ‘What are you, some kind of Commie?’  And, indeed, the story behind the American Revolution is a complex one, giving rise to polarised viewpoints, not unlike those of MacArthur and uneducated Americans.  Yet, having had a good background in history during primary and high school years, I cannot help but appreciate what the Revolutionary soldiers and the Founding Fathers, such as George Washington (pictured above, courtesy of e-how.com), accomplished in their creation of the Great Republic.

A book which appeared earlier this year gives us greater insight as to what happened during the War of Independence, including all the complex nuances.  The book is called Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War by Thomas Allen.  The Economist reviewed it in their January 8, 2011 issue.  What follow are a few excerpts from the review.

The number of loyalists versus patriots:

Mr Allen points out that although Loyalists were a minority—in the end perhaps no more than one-fifth of the colonists—in many places they were a very substantial proportion of the population of the colonies.

Where loyalists fled:

In the end, some 80,000 quit the new republic for Britain, the British colonies in the Caribbean and especially for Canada, where their influence has been lasting.

The predicament of slaves, freemen and Native Americans:

One tragic group were the black freedmen, in danger of being re-enslaved on the orders of George Washington. (At least one of them had belonged to Thomas Jefferson.) They were eventually allowed to emigrate to Nova Scotia, but were so badly treated there that they moved on to West Africa, where they became Sierra Leone’s elite, founding the capital, Freetown …

Many slaves, tempted by freedom, joined Loyalist units, such as Lord Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment; so did many, though not all, of the Native American tribes on the frontier.

Tenant farmers:

Some tenant farmers fought alongside their Tory landlords, while others were Loyalists out of hostility to Patriot landlords. Some were tempted by promises of land, others by the fact that the king’s armies paid in a gold-backed currency, not paper dollars.

Divisions by Christian denomination and nationality:

Presbyterians were apt to be Patriots, Anglicans often Tories … Quakers and Catholics sided with the king, and so did many settlers of German and Dutch origin, as well as most Scots Highlanders, who had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Hanoverian crown in defeat and were not about to go back on it.

The review closes by mentioning the — shock, horror — ‘brutality’ of it all.  Well, of course, it was brutal.  This was the 18th century, after all, when such warfare and civil punishments were the norm throughout the world and still occur in many countries today. What the article neglects to mention is that America’s Founding Fathers went on to forbid ‘cruel and inhumane’ punishment.

The price of American freedom was a great one.  Those who have read accounts of the various battles will wonder how a scrappy, rag-tag bunch of earnest patriots fighting against unfair taxation could ever have defeated the mighty British forces.  The older I get, the more I ponder how it happened. Surely, it was God’s will?

Richard Wurmbrand’s Marx and Satan: Chapter 6

Continuing with excerpts from the late Lutheran pastor Richard Wurmbrand‘s Marx and Satan, what follows are glimpses into the lives of children and Christians under Communist regimes.

Wurmbrand also explains why the language of Marxism and its offshoots is so complex.  It’s meant to confound and confuse.  Therefore, if you don’t fully understand their theory after reading them over and over again, consider yourself fortunate.  Marx called his own books ‘swinish’ and his ‘criticism’ a ‘nonsense’.

This post is not for those of a sensitive nature — or young children. However, once again, I cannot express how important it is for high school and university students to read this text, whether at home or as part of a church youth group.  Marx, Communists, Socialists and theorists (e.g. Fabians and the Frankfurt School) are only attacking God.  They don’t really care about building a better, more equal world.  Destruction and death are part of their goal — just for the sake of it.  What they propose and encourage us to do around the world is nothing short of criminal.  Wurmbrand calls it demonic, as it revolves around blasphemy.  The economic and social theory is a mere mask. You’ll find out more in this chapter.  Unfortunately, many of us have been lured to accept Marxism as something benevolent and loving for mankind.  Wurmbrand even gives statistics from the late 20th century showing how many American clergymen find it compatible with Christianity!  What a mistake!

Those interested in regression ‘therapy’ may also find this chapter of use to see how the Soviets deployed what Wurmbrand refers to as ‘occult’ techniques.

Excerpts are taken from pages 48 – 54 of the text, which can be found in full on Scribd. Subheads are in the original. Emphases in the text are mine.

Chapter Six – A Spiritual Warfare

The Little and the Big Devils

According to current official Marxist doctrine, which, as has been illustrated, is only a disguise, neither God nor the Devil exists. Both are fancies. Because of this teaching, Christians are persecuted by the Communists.

However, the Soviet newspaper Kommunisma Uzvara (April 1974) reported that many atheist circles were created in Red Latvia’s schools. The name given the children in the fourth through sixth grades was “little devils,” while seventh graders were called “servants of the Devil.” In another school eighth graders had the name “faithful children of the Devil.” At the meeting the children came clothed as devils, complete with horns and tails.

Thus, it was forbidden to worship God, though devil worship was openly permitted and even encouraged among children of school age. This was the hidden objective of the Communists when they seized power in Russia …

The Communists consider it wrong to believe in God. For this “crime,” many children were separated from their families and kept in special atheist boarding schools.

Incredibly, the Communists even wanted to make Satan-worshipers of church leaders. A Russian Orthodox priest named Platonov, an anti-Jewish agitator, went over to the side of the Communists when they came to power in Russia. For this, he was made a bishop and became a Judas who denounced members of his flock to the Secret Police, well knowing they would be severely persecuted …

Pravoslavnaia Rus writes:

The Orthodox cathedral in Odessa, so much loved by the Odessites, became the meeting place of Satanists soon after the Communists came to power…. They gathered also in Slobodka-Romano and in Count Tolstoi’s former home.

Then follows a detailed account of Satanist masses said by deacon Serghei Mihailov, of the treacherous Living Church, an Orthodox branch established in connivance with the Communists.  An attendant describes the Satanist mass as a “parody of the Christian liturgy, in which human blood is used for communion.” These masses took place in the cathedral before its main altar …

Religious Obscenities

It might be in somesense “logical” that Communists would arrest priests and pastors as counter-revolutionaries. But why were priests compelled by the Marxists in the Romanian prison of Piteshti to say Mass over excrement and urine? Why were Christians tortured into taking Communion with these as the elements? Why such an obscene mockery of religion? Why did the Romanian Orthodox priest Roman Braga, whom I knew personally when he was a prisoner of the Communists, and who presently resides in the U.S.A., have his teeth knocked out one by one with an iron rod in order to make him blaspheme?

The Communists had explained to him and others: “If we kill you Christians, you go to heaven. But we don’t want you to be crowned martyrs. You should curse God first and then go to hell.”

… Some prisoners were compelled to take off their trousers and sit with their naked bottoms on open Bibles.

Marxists are supposed to be atheists who believe in neither heaven nor hell. In these extreme circumstances, Marxism has lifted its atheistic mask to reveal its true face, the face of Satanism. Communist persecution of religion might have a human explanation, but the fury of such perverse persecution can only be Satanic.

In Romanian prisons and in the Soviet Union as well, nuns who would not deny their faith were raped anally, and Baptist girls had oral sex forced on them.

Many prisoners who were so treated died as martyrs, but the Communists were not satisfied with this. Using Luciferian techniques, they made martyrs die blaspheming because of the delirium provoked by torture …

Torture is productive, it leads to ingenious inventions– this is all Marx had to say about the subject. No wonder Marxist governments have surpassed all others in torturing their opponents!  This alone displays the Satanic nature of Marxism …

Satanist desecrations of Catholic churches occurred in the 1970s in Upyna, Dotnuva, Zanaiciu, Kalvarija, Sede, etc., localities in Lithuania. One about which we know happened in Alsedeai on September 22, 1980.

In his book Psychiatric Hospital 14, Moscow, Georgi Fedotov tells of his conversation with the psychiatrist Dr. Valdimir Lwitski about a Christian named Argentov who was detained there. The physician says, “You are pulling your friend Eduard toward God and we toward the Devil. So I’m using my rights as a psychiatrist to deny you and your friends access to him.”

The Christian Salu Daka Ndebele was interrogated by the Secret Police of Maputo in Communist Mozambique. The officer said to him, “We want to kill your God.” He raised his gun toward the head of the prisoner and declared, “This is my God. With this I have the power of life and death. If your God comes here, I will shoot Him dead myself.”

In Chiasso, Communist Angola, Communists slaughtered animals in a church and placed their heads on the altar and pulpit. A poster proclaimed, “These are the gods whom you adore.” Pastor Aurelio Chicanha Saunge was killed, together with one hundred and fifty parishioners.

When the Catholic Lithuanian priest Eugene Vosikevic was killed, his mouth was found to have been filled with bread, an apparent Satanist ritual.

Vetchernaia Moskva, a Communist newspaper, let pass a Freudian slip of the pen:

We do not fight against believers and not even against clergymen. We fight against God to snatch believers from Him.

… We do not wonder at these words in a Soviet newspaper. Marx had said it already in his book German Ideology. Calling God “the absolute Spirit,” as his teacher Hegel had done, he wrote, “We are concerned with a highly interesting question: the decomposition of the Absolute Spirit.”

… In Albania a priest, Stephen Kurti, was sentenced to death for having baptized one child. Baptisms must be performed in secret in many Communist lands, including North Korea …

In the former Soviet Union baptisms could be officiated only after registration. Persons wishing to be baptized or to have their child baptized presented their identity cards to the representative of the church board, who in turn reported them to the state authorities. The result was persecution. Kolkhozniks (workers on collective farms) had no identity cards and could therefore baptize their children only secretly. Many protestant pastors received prison sentences for baptizing people.

The Communist fight against baptism presupposes belief in its value for a soul. Religious people in Israel or Pakistan or Nepal oppose baptism in the name of their own religious outlook, because it is a Christian seal. But for atheists– as Communists clearly declare themselves to be– baptism should mean nothing. Supposedly it neither benefits nor harms the baptized. Why then do these Communists fight against baptism? It is because Communists “fight against God to snatch believers from Him.” Their ideology is not really inspired by atheism, but by a fervent hatred for God.

“Among other purposes,” said Lenin, “we created our party specifically for the fight against any religious deceiving of the people.”

Occult Practices

More about the relationship between Marxism and the occult can be found in Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain by Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroder. It is highly significant that the Communist East had been much more advanced than the West in research about the dark forces manipulated by Satan …

In Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc., the Communist Party spent huge sums on secret investigation into this science. They hid from the West information about what happened in the twenty parapsychological institutes located in the Soviet Union.

Komsomolskaia Pravda (Moscow) published a lengthy article about hypnotists who help people “regress to past lives.” For the induction process they use the following suggestions:

You descend into earth, deeper, even deeper. You and the earth become one…. You are deep in the earth. You are surrounded by thick darkness…. Around you is eternal night…

Now we approach a spot of light far away… nearer and nearer. We sneak through a small hole to the sky, leaving our own body deep in the earth…. We overcome the frontiers of time … and we return to your past….”

Soviet writers said clearly that this “time machine” was not science fiction. “Transpersonalism” offered this voyage in time.

In the Satanist black masses, all prayers are said from the end to the beginning, and the priestly robe is worn inside out. Inversion is the Satanist rule, and this is applied even to the doctrine of reincarnation. Whereas Indian devotees are concerned about their future reincarnations and try to better themselves by obeying what they believe to be God’s commandments, the Satanists offer a return to former incarnations. They care nothing about a better future in eternity.

Marxism as a Church

… Volume 2 ofThe Works o f Marx and Engels opens with Jesus’ words to His disciples (John
6:63), as quoted by Marx in his book The Holy Family: “It is the spirit which gives life.” Then
we read:

Criticism [his criticism of all that exists] so loved the masses that it sent its only-begotten son [i.e., Marx ], that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have a life of criticism.  Criticism became masses and lived among us, and we saw its glory as the glory of the only-begotten Son of the Father. Criticism did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made itself of no reputation, taking the form of a bookbinder, and humbled itself up to nonsense– yes, critical nonsense in foreign languages.

Those knowledgeable in Scripture will recognize this as a parody of Biblical verses (John 3:16; 1:14; Philippians 2:6-8). Here again, Marx declares his own works to be “nonsense,” as well as “swinish books.”

Marxism is a religion, and it even “uses” Scripture. Its main work, The Capitalle by Marx, is called “the Bible of the working class.” Marx considered himself “the Pope of Communism.”

Communism “has the pride of infallibility.” All who oppose the Communist “creed” (this expression is used by Engels) are excommunicated …

Those who die in the service of Marxism are feasted as “martyrs.” Marxism also has its sacraments: the solemn receptions in the toddlers’ organization called “the Children of October”, the oaths given when received as “Pioneers”, after which come the higher grades of initiation in the Komsomol and the Party. Confession is replaced with public self-criticism before the assembly of Party members.

Marxism is a church. It has all the characteristics of a church. Yet, its god is not named in its popular literature. But, as seen by the proofs given in this book, Satan is obviously its god.

It is strange that though Marxism is clearly Satanic, it is not seen as a threat by many churches in the free world. Some illuminating statistics on this are available.

Seminary professors in the U.S.A. were asked, “Can an individual consistently be a good member of your denomination and adhere to Marxism?”

Below are the percentage figures of those who answered Yes:

Episcopalian – 68 %

Lutheran – 53 %

Presbyterian – 49 %

Methodist – 49%

Church of Christ – 47 %

American Baptist – 44 %

Roman Catholic – 31 %

How sad that those who follow the Truth are duped by those who serve the father of lies.

Tomorrow: Chapter Seven – Marx, Darwin and Revolution

Apologetics Corner: Christians and animals

Before I get into the topic of this post, I’d just like to set the backdrop for it.  In researching this subject, I came across an essay by Dr Dean O. Wenthe, the President of Concordia University in Ft Wayne, Indiana.  (For my overseas readers — Concordia is affiliated with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS).)

Dr Wenthe discusses modern university education in ‘Postmodernism & Sacred Scripture’. It goes some way in explaining why our everyday world is so puzzling on so many levels.

Many of the prominent names come (as indicated) from the larger circles of philosophy and literature: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Stanly Fish, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jurgen Habermas, Paul Ricouer, Richa[r]d Rorty-to mention only select authors. Similarly, certain schools of thought take on labels: contextual pragmatism, deconstructionism, feminism, liberation theology, power-interests, semiotics, speech acts, structuralism, etc.

I studied semiotics, reading Roland Barthes and Walter Benjamin at university for film class, so, yes, this is a fairly typical list of thinkers and topics.  Note that Habermas was part of the Frankfurt School.

The way we think today

Dr Wenthe comes up with some amazing quotes.  First, what about this from David Lyon of Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario)?

Only tribal truths and tribal decisions about right and wrong can be made.

In other words, your personal truth depends on what you have gleaned from your national origins and what faith you practice.  A ‘tribal truth’ is, therefore, based on a collectivist  perspective.  The people around you — through their actions, conversations and governance — will tell you what your notion of right and wrong is.

But someone following Jacques Derrida’s theories can always manage to ‘deconstruct’ these truths.  As Dr Wenthe explains:

Every statement invites a plurality of interpretations. Possible meanings multiply.

And we end up with the relativism that we encounter today.  This is one reason why people get so emotional when they come up against hard data and historical evidence.  As my better half often jests, ‘Surely you’re not going to bring fact into this discussion!’

Therefore, when it comes to Scripture, about which untold books have been written since Christ’s time on Earth, all this has been overturned (emphases mine):

Robert B. and Mary P. Coote have applied such a lens to the Bible in their book Power, Politics, and the Making of the Bible, (Fortress 1990) … Consider these exegetical adventures: (a) The Yahwist was “designed to appeal for the loyalty of tribal sheikhs in the Negeb and Sinai. It is David’s buttress against Egypt in the south and therefore suggests that Israel’s early chiefs, the Patriarchs were southern sheikhs like themselves.”⁵ (b) Or, when the texts describe the “fear of God” they remind us “that like all the privileged, Jeroboam feared himself in other men and hence projected this fear, in the guise of cultic and judicial respect“, or the “fear of God” as public policy.⁶ Hence, the fear of God becomes a nervous politician’s effort to handle his insecurities. (c) And, disingenuously, the beautiful Messianic psalm-Psalm 2-is described as a “raucous salute to the Davidic imperialism.”⁷

Jesus and the Gadarene Swine

So, it’s no wonder that we end up with conversations such as this British one on the United Reformed Church forum about Jesus’s ‘cruelty’ to animals.  This thread discusses the story of the Gadarene Swine: Mark 5:1-20, Matthew 8:28-34, Luke 8:26-39). (This scene — courtesy of the Tate Collection — is pictured above in an 1883 painting, The Miracle of the Gadarene Swine, by Briton Riviere (1840-1920).)

Robbie, who does not appear to be a Christian but rather a strong apologist for animals, writes (24 October 2010, 7:05pm):

My motivation is to discern the truth but it is also irrelevant – what matters is whether the argument is correct o[r] not …

It is the awful fact of Je[s]us’s appalling cruelty that you seem unable [to] escape. Think of the reports to the RSPCA if that happened today.  And all the evidence is in the bible.

The FACT is that if we bel[i]eve the evidence of three gospels Jesus was cruel to animals in a way that would make him utterly reviled by decent modern society.  I certainly have vastly more compassion than that – as do very many 21st century humans. I denounce him for his cruelty just as I denounce Luther for his vast works of evil.

In addtion it would be clear that Jesus’ suffering on the c[ro]ss was not suffering at all – just appearance …

It’s the breathtaking postmodernist reasoning in that quote which, putting it politely, stuns me.  First, the truth doesn’t matter as much as the validity of the argument does. (Huh?) Then, he sets himself up to be higher than the Son of God.  (Oh, boy.) Then, that Jesus never suffered on the Cross is ‘clear’? (It’s incredible that someone can even write those words.)  Yet, this is fairly common argumentation today.  And, of course, we have the mention of the all-powerful, pathological RSPCA.

But note Robbie’s lack of relief and gratitude that Jesus cast the demons out of the man, that the demons recognised Him and they themselves asked to be cast into the herd of swine. From the Bible story written by a retired schoolteacher and linked to in the preceding sentence:

The people of the area, the Gadarenes, believed this person was possessed by a devil. When he had started acting strangely, they had bound him with chains and forced him to live outside the town among the tombs. However, the wild man had superhuman strength and easily broke his restraints …

A strange thing happened when he saw Jesus. He ran up and bowed before Him. The demons inside knew who Jesus was all right, and they were forced to acknowledge His Divinity. Jesus commanded in a stern voice:” Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” …

The man’s rasping voice replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” Then, all the evil spirits who possessed the man begged Jesus not to send them away, but to send them into a herd of pigs who were  grazing on a nearby hillside. Jesus granted their request, but it did them no good.

As soon as the demons entered the pigs, the animals immediately stampeded down the hillside into the Sea of Galilee and were drowned.

This story is really about the continual battle between Jesus and Satan. Yet, today, people worry more about a demon-infested herd of pigs than a man’s mental health which Jesus, in His mercy, restored?  Something is seriously wrong with Western society.

From this type of reasoning, we progress to Christians drawing in their denominational founders to support claims of vegetarianism.  This thread comes from another British blog post with comments from vegetarians. The blogger, the Revd Richard Hall, a Methodist minister in Wales, balances out the discussion, particularly on whether John Wesley was a vegetarian:

Certainly JW went through veggie phases. On Dec 29th, 1747, he wrote in his journal, “I resumed my vegetable diet (which I had now discontinued for several years), and found it of use both to my body and soul; but, after two years, a violent flux which seized me in Ireland obliged me to return to the use of animal food.” Then in September 1749: “Today I resumed my spare diet, which i shall probably quit no more.” But whether he did or not, I don’t know.

Now, on to the main topic.

The biblical-based relationship between humans and animals

It’s important to really study this carefully and not just through a few hand-picked quotes. (This blog post is not meant to be a definitive statment on the subject but to give you ideas for further research.)

Going back to John Wesley for a moment, this is what the United Methodist Church has to say on the matter:

… some United Methodist theologians who’ve studied the issue say Wesley did forgo meat occasionally for health reasons.

“There’s no doubt about it—he followed a vegetarian diet from time to time,” said Randy Maddox, a United Methodist theologian and John Wesley specialist at Duke University.

“He never made that a requirement, and it wasn’t his consistent practice,” Maddox said …

Wesley stopped eating meat at times because it made him feel better, said Charles Wallace, a religion scholar and chaplain at Willamette University in Salem, Ore …

Maddox said Wesley ate animals while also crusading for their welfare.

“At one time, if an Anglican priest preached against cock fighting, they were accused of being Methodist,” Maddox said.

An Evangelical minister, Dr Stephen Vantassel, who teaches Theology at King’s Evangelical Divinity School in Kent (England), is also the webmaster for the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management.  In ‘Why Christians Cannot Support Animal Rights’, he observes:

People are generally intrigued by my line of work, but become unsettled upon learning that I am also a minister with a Ph.D. in theology. They seem puzzled that a minister would be teaching the public about techniques that involve shooting, trapping, and killing wildlife. After all, aren’t they God’s creatures? Shouldn’t ministers be about peace and love and harmony?

Unfortunately, what they fail to understand is that there is no fundamental contradiction between responsibly killing animals and following Christ. In fact, the contradiction lies with those who reject our right to kill animals on the grounds that such actions are non-Christian …

Dr Vantassel explains what Man’s God-given ‘dominion’ over the animal kingdom means:

First, Scripture clearly says that God gave dominion to humanity (Gen 1:26-8). Dominion does not mean despotism. Humans were to govern the world in service to God as managers run an apartment block for the interests of the owner. Genesis 2 explicitly relates God’s command to work the garden and to protect it. The evidence suggests that God wanted humans to protect species from extinction. Individual animals did not receive that protection. If you have any doubts, ask how our lives would be different if Adam and Eve decided to express dominion over the Serpent rather than listening to it. Adam and Eve failed to protect the garden because they failed to eject, or dare I say kill the Serpent, for its blasphemy. In short, they failed to express dominion over the serpent.

He also gives evidence for Christ’s pronouncing that all foods are ‘clean’ — suitable and good to eat.  Also note the mention of the Gadarene Swine:

Contrary to the limits in diet proffered by animal rights activists, Christ gave humanity permission to eat all animals. By declaring all foods ceremonially clean, Christians were no longer bound to follow the restrictions of Kosher Laws (Mk 7:19) and could enjoy the flavors of pigs and lobster with divine blessing. Christ’s actions towards animals are even more telling. He allowed demons to drown pigs without ever bothering to run into the Sea of Galilee to save them (Lk 8:33). He even helped the disciples kill more fish through the miracle of the fishes (Jn 21:6).  If we listen to the claims of the Christian animal rights activists, then we have to wonder whether Christ sinned by his treatment of animals. Of course, if Christ was not perfect, then we are still lost in our sin and we know that is not true.

Well, yes, as we saw above, some believe the RSPCA would have run Jesus out of town.

Dr Vantassel elaborates further in another essay, this one on hunting.  Before I take a quote from there, I would like to interject that, until recently, good stewardship of nature meant that man hunted not only for food but to ensure that the number of animals — particularly game — was kept at optimum levels.  Too many deer or pheasant, for example, led to starvation and disease. Leaving predators to multiply also threatened animal populations, in the wild or on farms. Therefore, hunting was a form of population control.  Similarly, at the end of the harvest, farmers used to burn their fields.  The ash from their crops would penetrate the ground and enrich it for the following year.  Now, both practices are frowned upon — if not forbidden — in places.

Christianity teaches that humanity has a stewardship role on the earth. Unlike the preservationists, we believe that it is our job to manage the animal kingdom with the natural predators that God has provided to keep populations in balance. We disagree that letting nature take its course is the correct action. For we are part of that nature. It always strikes me as strange how animal rights people think its okay for diseases to reduce a burdensome animal population, but they don’t think it’s okay for a human to preemptively reduce that population and even make money doing it …

In Christian terms, since animals are not humans they do not command the same moral rights as humans do. Just as plants are not on the same vital plane as animals … Scripture and experience both tell us that humans, while sharing many animal like characteristics, have something in them that is fundamentally different than what animals possess. Some call this different thing, soul, others spirit, still others reason …

… the Bible clearly teaches that humanity is created in God’s image (Gen.1:26). Scripture never asserts that animals are created in God’s image. The image of God consists of our ability to self-aware, to control our surroundings and to create.

How man came to eat meat in the Old Testament

James Hughes, an elder in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Canada, has traced man’s food consumption in the Book of Genesis, noting the disagreement of Protestant theologians on what was eaten.  John Calvin believed that man might have been eating meat all along.  Over a century later, the Calvinist minister and Bible scholar Matthew Henry wrote that man’s eating habits changed after the time of Noah and the flood.

Mr Hughes offers these hypotheses:

- They may have resorted to cannibalism. Cannibalism is found among the most degraded portions of mankind after the Flood, so it is not far fetched to surmise that this same evil also occurred before the Flood. If men ate the flesh of other men, it is not inconceivable that they also found a reason in their invented religions to eat animal flesh.

- It appears that God introduced animal sacrifice after the Fall (Gen 3.21; Gen 4.4,5) as a symbol of atonement from sin. It may be that men lusted after the ‘food of God’ and took animal flesh for food so that they could be ‘like God’.

He then explains Calvin’s and Henry’s points of view:

Calvin, assuming that men ate meat before the Flood, says further in his comments on Genesis 9.3 that the reasons God explicitly granted animals for food to men were: 1) to control unbridled licence since the right was granted by God after the Flood, 2) free men from having doubts about the propriety of eating meat. In other words, God validated what men had been doing without explicit licence before the Flood …

Matthew Henry states that he thinks that men were vegetarians before the Flood, and provides another perspective on why God may have granted man the right to eat meat.[2] He suggests that immediately following the Flood, there was a shortage of food since all the vegetation had been washed away, and thus men needed to eat meat. This seems like a peculiar reason since God had told Noah to take into the ark sufficient food for himself and the animals (Gen 6.21), and it does not explain why man was permitted to continue eating meat once the vegetation had re-grown.

Mr Hughes, however, believes the shift was in relation to a change in God’s covenant with Man.

There is however, an element found in all the subsequent covenantal administrations that is not found in the Covenant of Creation. This is the redemptive-substitutionary element …

With the introduction of the redemptive-substitutionary element there was an associated change in the covenant fellowship meal. In the first covenant administration the meal was based on life—fruit from the Tree of Life, and did not involve sacrifice or blood since there was no sin and no need for substitution. The second covenant administration, however, required both sacrifice and shedding of blood (Heb 9.22). The covenant fellowship meal was changed from ‘life’ to ‘death’ in that it involved eating a portion of the redemptive-substitutionary sacrifice—a portion of the meat of the clean animals that were sacrificed to God …

In the New Covenant we find the same concept. Those who partake of the covenant fellowship meal eat a portion of the redemptive-substitutionary sacrifice (Mt 26.26; 1 Cor 11.24). However, in the New Covenant, at least two changes occur: 1) the redemptive-substitutionary component is no longer bloody, because Christ’s blood has been shed once for all time (Heb 7.27); and 2) the participation in the eating is not physical but spiritual. The covenant fellowship meal has been changed from eating a portion of the sacrificed animals to symbolical elements (bread and wine) that allow us to participate spiritually in the once-for-all-time sacrifice of Christ …

I have emphasized the permissive aspect with regard to meat eating found in the Covenant enactment in Genesis 8 and 9. Without doubt, God permitted man to eat meat. However if we read the passage carefully, it appears that the provision of meat eating is not just permissive, but also prescriptive. Just as there is the command to “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Gen 9.1), there may also be a command embedded in the words “everything that lives and moves shall be food for you” (Gen 9.3 ESV).

As such, he has strong words for those who choose vegetarianism as a lifestyle choice:

Vegetarianism, even if not participated for ‘religious’ reasons, is rebellion against the Covenant. Personal-choice vegetarianism may be a slap in the face of God, and is to go the way of the heathen.

Meat in the New Testament

Dr Kim Riddlebarger, the widely-cited Reformed pastor and author, studies the church in Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) in ‘To the Church in Pergamum’.  He clarifies what the issue was with food.  It was not with the fact that the Nicolaitans were eating meat but that it was meat sacrificed to idols:

That the Nicolaitans were not denying Christ directly, but doing so implicitly can be seen when Jesus warns this church about eating meat sacrificed to idols, as well as reminding them that Christians must avoid all sexual immortality, especially when these things are directly connected to paganism. These are very prominent themes throughout the New Testament even though they seem foreign to us so many years removed. Recall that Paul speaks about this same matter in his first letter to the Corinthians. It is addressed at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, when the leaders of the church affirmed with one voice the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone, while at the same time insisting that Gentiles avoid eating meat used in pagan sacrifices and sexual immorality.

What is in view here is not vegetarianism or celibacy. God is not against meat or sex. What is in view is the fact that Christians cannot eat meat which was left over from pagan sacrifices and rituals, and then sold in the marketplace at a discounted price. For a Christian to eat such meat is, in effect, to sanction or condone the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and bloody fertility rites. Paul calls this sharing the table with demons in 1 Corinthians 10 …

The principle for the church in Pergamum as well as the application for us today is very simple. Christians cannot worship Christ and at the same time participate in pagan or non-Christian religious practices …

Although Dr Riddlebarger does not touch on the subject, I shall interject that it is for that reason many Christians are in a quandary as to whether they should eat halal meat.

However, generally speaking:

²⁵Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. ²⁶For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” ²⁷If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.  — St Paul (1 Cor. 10:25-27)

And, very importantly:

¹Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ²through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, ³ who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. — St Paul (1 Tim. 4:1-5)

In fact, the Lord instructed Peter to eat meat:

⁹The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. ¹⁰And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance ¹¹and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. ¹²In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. ¹³And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” ¹⁴But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” ¹⁵And the voice came to him again a second time,  “What God has made clean, do not call common.” ¹⁶This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. — Acts 10:9-16

Jesus ate meat:

⁴¹And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” ⁴²They gave him a piece of broiled fish, ⁴³ and he took it and ate before them. — Luke 24:41-43

Romans 14 is hotly contested between Christian carnivores and vegetarians because of verse 15:

15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.

Note, however, that vegetarians apply it against carnivores but carnivores have the good grace not to apply it to vegetarians!

Jim Sawtelle, writing for the Reformed Herald, discusses Romans 14, legalism and Christian liberty — an article well worth reading.  Mr Sawtelle writes:

Two groups had emerged, the “strong” and the “weak.” The strong were able to grasp the significance of Christ’s death for daily living, such as receiving and using food, drink, etc. The “weak” were not able to sort out these things as of yet. But the heart of the problem, as Paul identified it, was not that there were differences of views. The problem was that the strong were despising the weak, and the weak were judging the strong (verse 3) …

First, both weak and strong are received by God in Christ. Both are justified. Behavior has nothing to do with acceptance before God. You are accepted because of the Christ’s death and righteousness. Therefore, receive the one who is weak in the faith and do not dispute with him or her over these minor differences. Do not despite this weak one, for this is one for whom Christ died; this is one whom Christ loves (see also Chapter 15:1,7).

Second, God is the judge of both the weak and the strong (verse 4). In other words, God is God and you aren’t! I’m not perfect and neither are you.

Third, God knows how to preserve and sanctify His people …

Because we are received by Christ, and in Christ, we can have differences of opinions; and yet these differences must never lead us to either “despising” or “judging” one another. No one’s actions and behavior led to God receiving them. Therefore, these differences over doubtful things … must never tear us apart from one another.

In conclusion, let’s not proscribe what God allows and may have actually prescribed: meat.  Furthermore, in our concern for our surroundings, let us take care not to exalt animals over humans.  Above all, let us love one another in Christian charity.

John Gresham Machen on what to do about the modern Church

Today’s post concludes the excerpts from John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism. Machen gives us his solutions for combatting modernist — ‘liberal’ — thinking and teaching in the Church.

If you missed previous entries in this series, please click here. Today’s excerpts are from pages 162 -168 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book.  Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.

The problem

Christianity is being attacked from within by a movement which is anti-Christian to the core.

What church officers can do

In the first place, they should encourage those who are engaging in the intellectual and spiritual struggle. They should not say, in the sense in which some laymen say it, that more time should be devoted to the propagation of Christianity, and less to the defense of Christianity. Certainly there should be propagation of Christianity. Believers should certainly not content themselves with warding off attacks, but should also unfold in an orderly and positive way the full riches of the gospel. But far more is usually meant by those who call for less defense and more propagation. What they really intend is the discouragement of the whole intellectual defense of the faith. And their words come as a blow in the face of those who are fighting the great battle. As a matter of fact, not less time, but more time, should be devoted to the defense of the gospel. Indeed, truth cannot be stated clearly at all without being set over against error … Moreover, the present crisis must be taken into account. There may have been a day when there could be propagation of Christianity without defense. But such a day at any rate is past. At the present time, when the opponents of the gospel are almost in control of our churches, the slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord. There have been previous great crises in the history of the Church, crises almost comparable to this. One appeared in the second century, when the very life of Christendom was threatened by the Gnostics. Another came in the Middle Ages when the gospel of God’s grace seemed forgotten. In such times of crisis, God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.

In the second place, Christian officers in the Church should perform their duty in deciding upon the qualifications of candidates for the ministry. The question “For Christ or against him?” constantly arises in the examination of candidates for ordination. Attempts are often made to obscure the issue. It is often said: “The candidate will no doubt move in the direction of the truth; let him now be sent out to learn as well as to preach.” And so another opponent of the gospel enters the councils of the Church, and another false prophet goes forth to encourage sinners to come before the judgment seat of God clad in the miserable rags of their own righteousness. Such action is not really “kind” to the candidate himself. It is never kind to encourage a man to enter into a life of dishonesty. The fact often seems to be forgotten that the evangelical Churches are purely voluntary organizations; no one is required to enter into their service. If a man cannot accept the belief of such churches, there are other ecclesiastical bodies in which he can find a place. The belief of the Presbyterian Church, for example, is plainly set forth in the Confession of Faith, and the Church will never afford any warmth of communion or engage with any real vigor in her work until her ministers are in whole-hearted agreement with that belief. It is strange how in the interests of an utterly false kindness to men, Christians are sometimes willing to relinquish their loyalty to the crucified Lord.

In the third place, Christian officers in the Church should show their loyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of the individual congregations. The issue often arises in connection with the choice of a pastor. Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive … Shall we be satisfied with preachers who merely “do not deny” the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who “do not deny” the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude to the blessed Savior who loved them and gave Himself for them!

In the fourth place − the most important thing of all − there must be a renewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance. In countless cases, Christianity is rejected simply because men have not the slightest notion of what Christianity is. An outstanding fact of recent Church history is the appalling growth of ignorance in the Church. Various causes, no doubt, can be assigned for this lamentable development. The development is due partly to the general decline of education − at least so far as literature and history are concerned. The schools of the present day are being ruined by the absurd notion that education should follow the line of least resistance, and that something can be “drawn out” of the mind before anything is put in. They are also being ruined by an exaggerated emphasis on methodology at the expense of content and on what is materially useful at the expense of the high spiritual heritage of mankind. These lamentable tendencies, moreover, are in danger of being made permanent through the sinister extension of state control. But something more than the general decline in education is needed to account for the special growth of ignorance in the Church. The growth of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity. But whatever be the causes for the growth of ignorance in the Church, the evil must be remedied. It must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other educational agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the chief business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is; and the fair and logical thing is to learn what Christianity is, not from its opponents, but from those who themselves are Christians … Men have abundant opportunity today to learn what can be said against Christianity, and it is only fair that they should also learn something about the thing that is being attacked.

Study the Bible

Yet there is in the Christian life no room for despair. Only, our hopefulness should not be founded on the sand. It should be founded, not upon a blind ignorance of the danger, but solely upon the precious promises of God. Laymen, as well as ministers, should return, in these trying days, with new earnestness, to the study of the Word of God.

How will this crisis end?

What the immediate future may bring we cannot presume to say. The final result indeed is clear. God has not deserted His Church; He has brought her through even darker hours than those which try our courage now, yet the darkest hour has always come before the dawn …

But meanwhile our souls are tried. We can only try to do our duty in humility and in sole reliance upon the Savior who bought us with His blood. The future is in God’s hand, and we do not know the means that He will use in the accomplishment of His will. It may be that the present evangelical churches will face the facts, and regain their integrity while yet there is time. If that solution is to be adopted there is no time to lose, since the forces opposed to the gospel are now almost in control. It is possible that the existing churches may be given over altogether to naturalism, that men may then see that the fundamental needs of the soul are to be satisfied not inside but outside of the existing churches, and that thus new Christian groups may be formed.

Stand firm in the faith

There must be somewhere groups of redeemed men and women who can gather together humbly in the name of Christ, to give thanks to Him for His unspeakable gift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone can satisfy the needs of the soul. At the present time, there is one longing of the human heart which is often forgotten − it is the deep, pathetic longing of the Christian for fellowship with his brethren. One hears much, it is true, about Christian union and harmony and co-operation. But the union that is meant is often a union with the world against the Lord, or at best a forced union of machinery and tyrannical committees. How different is the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! Sometimes, it is true, the longing for Christian fellowship is satisfied. There are congregations, even in the present age of conflict, that are really gathered around the table of the crucified Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the Church to seek refreshment for the soul. 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 … 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.

Conclusion

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.

End of series

John Gresham Machen on intolerance

We have reached the penultimate post of excerpts from John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism. For previous entries, click here.

Today, Machen explains why upholding biblical and doctrinal truth is not intolerant, regardless of what today’s clergy tell us.  He also had a particular concern about what was happening in Presbyterian missions.  You can find out more from his contributions to the earliest issues of The Presbyterian Guardian.

For my Reformed Anglican friends, note that Machen regards the Episcopalians as being apart from other Reformed churches.

Today’s excerpts are from pages 156 – 161 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book.  Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.

On intolerance in the Church

Involuntary organizations ought to be tolerant, but voluntary organizations, so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else cease to exist. The state is an involuntary organization; a man is forced to be a member of it whether he will or no … But within the state, individual citizens who desire to unite for some special purpose should be permitted to do so. Especially in the sphere of religion, such permission of individuals to unite is one of the rights which lie at the very foundation of our civil and religious liberty …

Among such voluntary associations are to be found the evangelical churches. An evangelical church is composed of a number of persons who have come to agreement in a certain message about Christ and who desire to unite in the propagation of that message, as it is set forth in their creed on the basis of the Bible. No one is forced to unite himself with the body thus formed; and because of this total absence of compulsion there can be no interference with liberty in the maintenance of any specific purpose − for example, the propagation of a message − as a fundamental purpose of the association. If other persons desire to form a religious association with some purpose other than the propagation of a message − for example, the purpose of promoting in the world, simply by exhortation and by the inspiration of the example of Jesus, a certain type of life − they are at perfect liberty to do so. But for an organization which is founded with the fundamental purpose of propagating a message to commit its resources and its name to those who are engaged in combating the message is not tolerance but simple dishonesty.  Yet it is exactly this course of action that is advocated by those who would allow non-doctrinal religion to be taught in the name of doctrinal churches − churches that are plainly doctrinal both in their constitutions and in the declarations which they require of every candidate for ordination.

Creeds and the Church

Certainly the essentially creedal character of evangelical churches is firmly fixed. A man may disagree with the Westminster Confession, for example, but he can hardly fail to see what it means; at least he can hardly fail to understand the “system of doctrine” which is taught in it. The Confession, whatever its faults may be, is certainly not lacking in definiteness. And certainly a man who solemnly accepts that system of doctrine as his own cannot at the same time be an advocate of a nondoctrinal religion which regards as a trifling thing that which is the very sum and substance of the Confession and the very center and core of the Bible upon which it is based. Similar is the case in other evangelical churches. The Protestant Episcopal Church, some of whose members, it is true, might resent the distinctive title of “evangelical,” is clearly founded upon a creed, and that creed, including the exultant supernaturalism of the New Testament and the redemption offered by Christ, is plainly involved in the Book of Common Prayer which every priest in his own name and in the name of the congregation must read.

The separation of naturalistic liberalism from the evangelical churches would no doubt greatly diminish the size of the churches. But Gideon’s three hundred were more powerful than the thirty-two thousand with which the march against the Midianites began.

The man in the pew, his money and the missions

The propagation of the gospel is clearly the joy as well as the duty of every Christian man. But how shall the gospel be propagated? The natural answer is that it shall be propagated through the agencies of the Church − boards of missions and the like. An obvious duty, therefore, rests upon the Christian man of contributing to the agencies of the Church. But at this point the perplexity arises. The Christian man discovers to his consternation that the agencies of the Church are propagating not only the gospel as found in the Bible and in the historic creeds, but also a type of religious teaching which is at every conceivable point the diametrical opposite of the gospel. The question naturally arises whether there is any reason for contributing to such agencies at all. Of every dollar contributed to them, perhaps half goes to the support of true missionaries of the Cross, while the other half goes to the support of those who are persuading men that the message of the Cross is unnecessary or wrong.  If part of our gifts is to be used to neutralize the other part, is not contribution to mission boards altogether absurd? The question may at least very naturally be raised … Many Christians seek to relieve the situation by “designating” their gifts, instead of allowing them to be distributed by the mission agencies. But at this point one encounters the centralization of power which is going on in the modern Church. On account of that centralization the designation of gifts is often found to be illusory. If gifts are devoted by the donors to one mission known to be evangelical, that does not always really increase the resources of that mission; for the mission boards can simply cut down the proportion assigned to that mission from the undesignated funds, and the final result is exactly the same as if there had been no designation of the gift at all …

In the support of such agencies, many congregations obviously must unite; and the question arises whether evangelical congregations can honestly support agencies which are opposed to the evangelical faith.

Church liberalism worse than heresy

The plain fact is that liberalism, whether it be true or false, is no mere “heresy” − no mere divergence at isolated points from Christian teaching. On the contrary it proceeds from a totally different root, and it constitutes, in essentials, a unitary system of its own. That does not mean that all liberals hold all parts of the system, or that Christians who have been affected by liberal teaching at one point have been affected at all points. There is sometimes a salutary lack of logic which prevents the whole of a man’s faith being destroyed when he has given up a part. But the true way in which to examine a spiritual movement is in its logical relations; logic is the great dynamic, and the logical implications of any way of thinking are sooner or later certain to be worked out. And taken as a whole, even as it actually exists today, naturalistic liberalism is a fairly unitary phenomenon; it is tending more and more to eliminate from itself illogical remnants of Christian belief. It differs from Christianity in its view of God, of man, of the seat of authority and of the way of salvation. And it differs from Christianity not only in theology but in the whole of life. It is indeed sometimes said that there can be communion in feeling where communion in thinking is gone, a communion of the heart as distinguished from a communion of the head. But with respect to the present controversy, such a distinction certainly does not apply. On the contrary, in reading the books and listening to the sermons of recent liberal teachers − so untroubled by the problem of sin, so devoid of all sympathy for guilty humanity, so prone to abuse and ridicule the things dearest to the heart of every Christian man − one can only confess that if liberalism is to return into the Christian communion there must be a change of heart fully as much as a change of mind. God grant that such a change of heart may come! But meanwhile the present situation must not be ignored but faced.

Tomorrow: Conclusion – Machen’s solutions

John Gresham Machen on honesty in the Church

As we near the end of John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism, we will read about his own struggle within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) — one of the most apostate mainstream Protestant churches today — and his conflict with modernist (‘liberal’) Princeton theologians.  These theologians called him hostile and unpleasant for defending the truth of the Bible.  Eventually, they asked him and his supporters to leave.  The result was the founding of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which still exists today.

Ecclesiastical error leading to heresy manifests itself as ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’  You can read about the Lutheran experience in America in 1872 where the Revd Charles Porterfield Krauth sounded alarm bells against the modernist softly-softly approach.

Machen wonders why those who disregard Christ’s death on the cross and His resurrection don’t become Unitarians.  I, too, have wondered the same thing and have stated such on this blog.  However, it seems that would be too honest an approach.  These clergy wish to subvert the Church — ‘change’ her, ‘modernise’ her.  A grave mistake.

Incidentally, it does not appear that Machen’s use of the word ‘evangelical’ necessarily ties up with our use of the word today.  He seems to be using it in a more traditional sense of distinguishing Protestant churches from Catholicism.  Note that the Lutheran Church in Germany has the word ‘Evangelical’ in its name.

If you missed previous entries from this 1923 book, you can find them here. Today’s excerpts are from pages 151 – 156 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book.  Subheads and emphases below are mine for easier navigation.

On honesty in doctrine

… the effort to sink doctrinal differences and unite the Church on a program of Christian service is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because, in its usual contemporary form, it is dishonest. Whatever may be thought of Christian doctrine, it can hardly be denied that honesty is one of the “weightier matters of the law.” Yet honesty is being relinquished in wholesale fashion by the liberal party in many ecclesiastical bodies today.

… even if a creedal Church were an undesirable thing, it would still remain true that as a matter of fact many (indeed in spirit really all) evangelical churches are creedal churches, and that if a man does not accept their creed he has no right to a place in their teaching ministry. The creedal character of the churches is differently expressed in the different evangelical bodies, but the example of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America may perhaps serve to illustrate what is meant. It is required of all officers in the Presbyterian Church, including the ministers, that at their ordination they make answer “plainly” to a series of questions which begins with the two following:

“Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?”

“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?”

If these “constitutional questions” do not fix clearly the creedal basis of the Presbyterian Church, it is difficult to see how any human language could possibly do so. Yet immediately after making such a solemn declaration, immediately after declaring that the Westminster Confession contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures, many ministers of the Presbyterian Church will proceed to decry that same Confession and that doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture to which they have just solemnly subscribed!

We are not now speaking of the membership of the Church, but of the ministry, and we are not speaking of the man who is troubled by grave doubts and wonders whether with his doubts he can honestly continue his membership in the Church … God grant that they may obtain comfort and help through the ministrations of the Church!

But we are speaking of men very different from these men of little faith − from these men who are troubled by doubts and are seeking earnestly for the truth. The men whom we mean are seeking not membership in the Church, but a place in the ministry, and they desire not to learn but to teach. They are not men who say, “I believe, help mine unbelief,” but men who are proud in the possession of the knowledge of this world, and seek a place in the ministry that they may teach what is directly contrary to the Confession of Faith to which they subscribe. For that course of action various excuses are made − the growth of custom by which the constitutional questions are supposed to have become a dead letter, various mental reservations, various “interpretations” of the declaration (which of course mean a complete reversal of the meaning). But no such excuses can change the essential fact. Whether it be desirable or not, the ordination declaration is part of the constitution of the Church. If a man can stand on that platform he may be an officer in the Presbyterian Church; if he cannot stand on it he has no right to be an officer in the Presbyterian Church. And the case is no doubt essentially similar in other evangelical Churches. Whether we like it or not, these Churches are founded upon a creed; they are organized for the propagation of a message. If a man desires to combat that message instead of propagating it, he has no right, no matter how false the message may be, to gain a vantage ground for combating it by making a declaration of his faith which − be it plainly spoken − is not true.

Why not become Unitarian instead?

… another course of action is perfectly open to the man who desires to propagate “liberal Christianity.” Finding the existing “evangelical” churches to be bound up to a creed which he does not accept, he may either unite himself with some other existing body or else found a new body to suit himself. There are of course certain obvious disadvantages in such a course − the abandonment of church buildings to which one is attached, the break in family traditions, the injury to sentiment of various kinds. But there is one supreme advantage which far overbalances all such disadvantages. It is the advantage of honesty. The path of honesty in such matters may be rough and thorny, but it can be trod. And it has already been trod − for example, by the Unitarian Church. The Unitarian Church is frankly and honestly just the kind of church that the liberal preacher desires − namely, a church without an authoritative Bible, without doctrinal requirements, and without a creed.

The case for going one’s own way

By withdrawing from the confessional churches − those churches that are founded upon a creed derived from Scripture − the liberal preacher would indeed sacrifice the opportunity, almost within his grasp, of so obtaining control of those confessional churches as to change their fundamental character. The sacrifice of that opportunity would mean that the hope of turning the resources of the evangelical churches into the propagation of liberalism would be gone. But liberalism would certainly not suffer in the end. There would at least be no more need of using equivocal language, no more need of avoiding offence. The liberal preacher would obtain the full personal respect even of his opponents, and the whole discussion would be placed on higher ground. All would, be perfectly straightforward and above-board. And if liberalism is true, the mere lose of physical resources would not prevent it from making its way.

Should the orthodox make way for the Modernists?

If there ought to be a separation between the liberals and the conservatives in the Church, why should not the conservatives be the ones to withdraw? Certainly it may come to that. If the liberal party really obtains full control of the councils of the Church, then no evangelical Christian can continue to support the Church’s work. If a man believes that salvation from sin comes only through the atoning death of Jesus, then he cannot honestly support by his gifts and by his presence a propaganda which is intended to produce an exactly opposite impression. To do so would mean the most terrible blood-guiltiness which it is possible to conceive. If the liberal party, therefore, really obtains control of the Church, evangelical Christians must be prepared to withdraw no matter what it costs. Our Lord has died for us, and surely we must not deny Him for favor of men. But up to the present time such a situation has not yet appeared; the creedal basis still stands firm in the constitutions of evangelical churches. And there is a very real reason why it is not the “conservatives” who ought to withdraw. The reason is found in the trust which the churches hold. That trust includes trust funds of the most definite kind. And contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion, we venture to regard a trust as a sacred thing. The funds of the evangelical churches are held under a very definite trust; they are committed to the various bodies for the propagation of the gospel as set forth in the Bible and in the confessions of faith. To devote them to any other purpose, even though that other purpose should be in itself far more desirable, would be a violation of trust.

On church donations

Funds dedicated to the propagation of the gospel by godly men and women of previous generations or given by thoroughly evangelical congregations today are in nearly all the churches being used partly in the propagation of what is diametrically opposed to the evangelical faith. Certainly that situation ought not to continue; it is an offence to every thoughtfully honest man whether he be Christian or not. But in remaining in the existing churches the conservatives are in a fundamentally different position from the liberals; for the conservatives are in agreement with the plain constitutions of the churches, while the liberal party can maintain itself only by an equivocal subscription to declarations which it does not really believe.

What is the solution?

The best way would undoubtedly be the voluntary withdrawal of the liberal ministers from those confessional churches whose confessions they do not, in the plain historical sense, accept. And we have not altogether abandoned hope of such a solution. Our differences with the liberal party in the Church are indeed profound, but with regard to the obligation of simple honesty of speech, some agreement might surely be attained. Certainly the withdrawal of liberal ministers from the creedal churches would be enormously in the interests of harmony and co-operation. Nothing engenders strife so much as a forced unity, within the same organization, of those who disagree fundamentally in aim.

Tomorrow: On accusations of intolerance

John Gresham Machen on the ‘brotherhood of man’

This week’s posts concern the final excerpts of John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923. For previous entries, click here.

The passages below are from Chapter 7 – the Church, pages 147 – 151 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book.  Over the next few days we shall read of Machen’s warnings about attacks on doctrine from inside the Church which are weakening her.  He is not one in favour of unity at all costs only to embrace error — a pervasive cry even in those days.  A companion piece to this is my post about the American Lutheran clergyman, Charles Porterfield Krauth, who warned in 1872 on the gentleness with which error creeps into the church.  And, of course, we see this battle going on in the Anglican Communion today.  The more orthodox are regrouping or fleeing to other denominations.  The Catholic Church — one of the refuges for Anglo-Catholics — also has its share of apostate priests who trivialise the Mass and preach a doctrine of what I call Christ-lite.

Subheads and emphases below are mine for easier navigation.

On the misrepresentation of missionaries

When, according to Christian belief, lost souls are saved, the saved ones become united in the Christian Church. It is only by a baseless caricature that Christian missionaries are represented as though they had no interest in education or in the maintenance of a social life in this world; it is not true that they are interested only in saving individual souls and when the souls are saved leave them to their own devices.

The ‘brotherhood of man’ a modern concept

Very different is this Christian conception of brotherhood from the liberal doctrine of the “brotherhood of man.” The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers. There is a sense in which this doctrine can be accepted by the Christian. The relation in which all men stand to one another is analogous in some important respects to the relation of brotherhood. All men have the same Creator and the same nature. The Christian man can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man. But the Christian knows also of a relationship far more intimate than that general relationship of man to man, and it is for this more intimate relationship that he reserves the term “brother.” The true brotherhood, according to Christian teaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed.

There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the Christian brotherhood is open without distinction to all; and the Christian man seeks to bring all men in. Christian service, it is true, is not limited to the household of faith; all men, whether Christians or not, are our neighbors if they be in need. But if we really love our fellow-men we shall never be content with binding up their wounds or pouring on oil and wine or rendering them any such lesser service. We shall indeed do such things for them. But the main business of our lives will be to bring them to the Savior of their souls.

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 … 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.

On society’s institutions

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.

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race. And even before the salvation of all society has been achieved, there is already a society of those who have been saved. That society is the Church. The Church is the highest Christian answer to the social needs of man.

Why the Church is in trouble

But what is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the reason for its obvious weakness? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But one cause is perfectly plain − the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership, but into her teaching agencies.  It is indeed inevitable that some persons who are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith which seems to be genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error to which we now refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great companies of persons who have never made any really adequate confession of faith at all and whose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of the Christian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely to the membership, but to the ministry of the Church, and to an increasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils and determine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Church today 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.

… no man can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual “liberals” toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain − whether or not liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour.

On erroneous church ‘unity’

The Church, we are told, has room both for liberals and for conservatives. The conservatives may be allowed to remain if they will keep trifling matters in the background and attend chiefly to “the weightier matters of the law.” And among the things thus designated as “trifling” is found the Cross of Christ, as a really vicarious atonement for sin.

Such obscuration of the issue attests a really astonishing narrowness on the part of the liberal preacher. Narrowness does not consist in definite devotion to certain convictions or in definite rejection of others. But the narrow man is the man who rejects the other man’s convictions without first endeavoring to understand them, the man who makes no effort to look at things from the other man’s point of view …

The liberal preacher says to the conservative party in the Church: “Let us unite in the same congregation, since of course doctrinal differences are trifles.” But it is the very essence of “conservatism” in the Church to regard doctrinal differences as no trifles but as the matters of supreme moment. A man cannot possibly be an “evangelical” or a “conservative” (or, as he himself would say, simply a Christian) and regard the Cross of Christ as a trifle. To suppose that he can is the extreme of narrowness. It is not necessarily “narrow” to reject the vicarious sacrifice of our Lord as the sole means of salvation. It may be very wrong (and we believe that it is), but it is not necessarily narrow. But to suppose that a man can hold to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ and at the same time belittle that doctrine, to suppose that a man can believe that the eternal Son of God really bore the guilt of men’s sins on the Cross and at the same time regard that belief as a “trifle” without bearing upon the welfare of men’s souls − that is very narrow and very absurd. We shall really get nowhere in this controversy unless we make a sincere effort to understand the other man’s point of view.

Tomorrow: On honesty in the Church

John Gresham Machen on modern Christian salvation

This post concludes Chapter 6 – Salvation from John Gresham Machen‘s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923.  You can catch up on past entries here.

If you think that deeds over creeds, missional universalism (à la Mother Teresa) and the social Gospel are new concepts, think again!  Machen points out the pitfalls of modernist (‘liberal’) Christianity which existed 90 years ago.

He also examines how modern clergy and politicians see churches as tools in resolving socio-political issues.  N.B.: He appears to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek with regard to immigration.  Large influxes of European immigrants had been arriving in the United States since the 1880s; this became a huge political issue by the turn of the century.  More restrictive immigration laws were enacted in the 1920s and relaxed in the mid-1960s, although the next wave of legal immigrants did not become discernible nationwide until the 1970s and 1980s.

The excerpts below are from pages 138 – 146 of Reformed Audio’s PDF of the book.  Subheads and emphases are mine for easier navigation.

The ‘programme’ of the modern Church

… heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all.  The rejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious; sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in the immortality of the soul. But the real basis of the belief in immortality has been given up by the rejection of the New Testament account of the resurrection of Christ. And, practically, the liberal preacher has very little to say about the other world. This world is really the center of all his thoughts; religion itself, and even God, are made merely a means for the betterment of conditions upon this earth.

Religion viewed as part of the state

… religion has become a mere function of the community or of the state. So it is looked upon by the men of the present day. Even hard-headed business men and politicians have become convinced that religion is needed. But it is thought to be needed merely as a means to an end. We have tried to get along without religion, it is said, but the experiment was a failure, and now religion must be called in to help.

Church as a welcome committee for immigrants

… great populations have found a place in our country; they do not speak our language or know our customs; and we do not know what to do with them. We have attacked them by oppressive legislation or proposals of legislation, but such measures have not been altogether effective. Somehow these people display a perverse attachment to the language that they learned at their mother’s knee. It may be strange that a man should love the language that he learned at his mother’s knee, but these people do love it, and we are perplexed in our efforts to produce a unified American people. So religion is called in to help; we are inclined to proceed against the immigrants now with a Bible in one hand and a club in the other offering them the blessings of liberty. That is what is sometimes meant by “Christian Americanization.”

The Church and industrial relations

Self-interest has here been appealed to; employers and employees have had pointed out to them the plain commercial advantages of conciliation. But all to no purpose. Class clashes still against class in the destructiveness of industrial warfare. And sometimes false doctrine provides a basis for false practice; the danger of Bolshevism is ever in the air. Here again repressive measures have been tried without avail; the freedom of speech and of the press has been radically curtailed. But repressive legislation seems unable to check the march of ideas. Perhaps, therefore, in these matters also, religion must be invoked.

Church as a force for political stability

Still another problem faces the modern world − the problem of international peace. This problem also seemed at one time nearly solved; self-interest seemed likely to be sufficient; there were many who supposed that the bankers would prevent another European war. But all such hopes were cruelly shattered in 1914, and there is not a whit of evidence that they are better founded now than they were then. Here again, therefore, self-interest is insufficient; and religion must be called in to help.

Religion — the cure for civil instability?

… religion is discovered after all to be a useful thing. But the trouble is that in being utilized religion is also being degraded and destroyed. Religion is being regarded more and more as a mere means to a higher end.  The change can be detected with especial clearness in the way in which missionaries commend their cause. Fifty years ago, missionaries made their appeal in the light of eternity. “Millions of men,” they were accustomed to say, “are going down to eternal destruction; Jesus is a Savior sufficient for all; send us out therefore with the message of salvation while yet there is time.” Some missionaries, thank God, still speak in that way. But very many missionaries make quite a different appeal. “We are missionaries to India,” they say. “Now India is in ferment; Bolshevism is creeping in; send us out to India that the menace may be checked.” Or else they say: “We are missionaries to Japan; Japan will be dominated by militarism unless the principles of Jesus have sway; send us out therefore to prevent the calamity of war.”

The same great change appears in community life. A new community, let us say, has been formed. It possesses many things that naturally belong to a well-ordered community; it has a drug-store, and a country club, and school. “But there is one thing,” its inhabitants say to themselves, “that is still lacking; we have no church. But a church is a recognized and necessary part of every healthy community. We must therefore have a church.” And so an expert in community church-building is summoned to take the necessary steps. The persons who speak in this way usually have little interest in religion for its own sake; it has never occurred to them to enter into the secret place of communion with the holy God. But religion is thought to be necessary for a healthy community; and therefore for the sake of the community they are willing to have a church.

Christianity should not be a socio-political tool

… it is perfectly plain that the Christian religion cannot be treated in any such way. The moment it is so treated it ceases to be Christian. For if one thing is plain it is that Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end. Our Lord made that perfectly clear when He said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother . . . he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26). Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certainly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those that exist between husband and wife and parent and child. Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them … if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it is accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well.

But if Christianity be directed toward another world; if it be a way by which individuals can escape from the present evil age to some better country, what becomes of “the social gospel”? At this point is detected one of the most obvious lines of cleavage between Christianity and the liberal Church.  The older evangelism, says the modern liberal preacher, sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks to transform the whole organism of society: the older evangelism was individual; the newer evangelism is social …

True Christianity versus modern Christianity

It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of God. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world … In that sense, it is true that Christianity is individualistic and not social.

But though Christianity is individualistic, it is not only individualistic. It provides fully for the social needs of man.

… A man is not isolated when he is in communion with God; he can be regarded as isolated only by one who has forgotten the real existence of the supreme Person. Here again, as at many other places, the line of cleavage between liberalism and Christianity really reduces to a profound difference in the conception of God. Christianity is earnestly theistic; liberalism is at best but half-heartedly so.  If a man once comes to believe in a personal God, then the wo[r]ship of Him will not be regarded as selfish isolation, but as the chief end of man … Very different is the prevailing doctrine of modern liberalism. According to Christian belief, man exists for the sake of God; according to the liberal Church, in practice if not in theory, God exists for the sake of man.

Family waning as an institution

But the social element in Christianity is found not only in communion between man and God, but also in communion between man and man. Such communion appears even in institutions which are not specifically Christian.

The most important of such institutions, according to Christian teaching, is the family. And that institution is being pushed more and more into the background. It is being pushed into the background by undue encroachments of the community and of the state. Modern life is tending more and more toward the contraction of the sphere of parental control and parental influence. The choice of schools is being placed under the power of the state; the “community” is seizing hold of recreation and of social activities. It may be a question how far these community activities are responsible for the modern breakdown of the home; very possibly they are only trying to fill a void which even apart from them had already appeared. But the result at any rate is plain − the lives of children are no longer surrounded by the loving atmosphere of the Christian home, but by the utilitarianism of the state. A revival of the Christian religion would unquestionably bring a reversal of the process; the family, as over against all other social institutions, would come to its rights again.

‘Applied Christianity’

The “otherworldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”

That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying tile Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men … This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help; his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are saved not by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: “Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again.”

Next week: Final chapter – the Church