J. Gresham Machen and Reformed ministry today...

After posting on Tim Keller and Redeemer, it seemed good also to post this excerpt from J. Gresham Machen's classic critique of early twentieth century liberalism, Christianity and Liberalism. If you have not read it, you simply must. This past Tuesday in our noon meeting with our church pastors and the students in our Clearnote Pastors College, I read the following excerpt out loud, making the point that this description of the liberalism of the early twentieth century is a very good placeholder for the culture of liberalism within PCA and other Reformed churches today. I say "culture" because the vocabulary of presentation has changed, but the substance is the same. There is no preaching of repentance in the PCA. Only grace everywhere and always. But grace without repentance is no grace at all. Instead, we preach to good people who just need to be a little less...

self-centered and to trust God more. Especially God's grace. Did I mention grace?

The consciousness of sin was formerly the starting-point of all preaching; but today it is gone. ...What has become of the consciousness of sin? The consciousness of sin has certainly been lost. But what has removed it from the hearts of men?

...the loss of the consciousness of sin ...has its roots in a mighty spiritual process which has been active during the past seventy-five years. [Machen published this book in 1923] Like other great movements, that process has come silently—so silently that its results have been achieved before the plain man was even aware of what was taking place. Nevertheless, despite all superficial continuity, a remarkable change has come about within the last seventy-five years. The change is nothing less than the substitution of paganism for Christianity as the dominant view of life. Seventy-five years ago, Western civilization, despite inconsistencies, was still predominantly Christian; today it is predominantly pagan.

...Paganism is that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties. Very different is the Christian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart.

In saying that Christianity is the religion of the broken heart, we do not mean that Christianity ends with the broken heart; we do not mean that the characteristic Christian attitude is a continual beating on the breast or a continual crying of "Woe is me." Nothing could be further from the fact. On the contrary, Christianity means that sin is faced once for all, and then is cast, by the grace of God, forever into the depths of the sea. The trouble with the paganism of ancient Greece, as with the paganism of modern times, was not in the superstructure, which was glorious, but in the foundation, which was rotten. There was always something to be covered up; the enthusiasm of the architect was maintained only by ignoring the disturbing fact of sin. In Christianity, on the other hand, nothing needs to be covered up. The fact of sin is faced squarely once for all, and is dealt with by the grace of God. But then, after sin has been removed by the grace of God, the Christian can proceed to develop joyously every faculty that God has given him. Such is the higher Christian humanism—a humanism founded not upon human pride but upon divine grace.

But although Christianity does not end with the broken heart, it does begin with the broken heart; it begins with the consciousness of sin. Without the consciousness of sin, the whole of the gospel will seem to be an idle tale. But how can the consciousness of sin be revived? Something no doubt can be accomplished by the proclamation of the law of God, for the law reveals transgressions. The whole of the law, moreover, should be proclaimed.

* * *

But if the consciousness of sin is to be produced, the law of God must be proclaimed in the lives of Christian people as well as in word. It is quite useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit, if at the same time the occupants of the pews go on taking sin very lightly and being content with the moral standards of the world. The rank and file of the Church must do their part in so proclaiming the law of God by their lives that the secrets of men's hearts shall be revealed.

All these things, however, are in themselves quite insufficient to produce the consciousness of sin. The more one observes the condition of the Church, the more one feels obliged to confess that the conviction of sin is a great mystery which can be produced only by the Spirit of God. Proclamation of the law, in word and in deed, can prepare for the experience, but the experience itself comes from God. When a man has that experience, when a man comes under the conviction of sin, his whole attitude toward life is transformed; he wonders at his former blindness, and the message of the gospel, which formerly seemed to be an idle tale, becomes now instinct with light. But it is God alone who can produce the change.

Only, let us not try to do without the Spirit of God.

Which seems a perfect description of the Reformed churches of our time. We are intent on doing church without any reliance upon the Holy Spirit. This seems particularly true of our preaching.

The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task—she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible—especially in the life of Jesus—something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Very good post. Anyone wanting a free pdf of Christianity and Liberalism can find it here.

Tim,

I don't understand how you can in good conscience quote Machen to anyone. Your family and personal history is one of continuing for decades in the very denomination that could not endure Machen. You thought Machen was wrong. Your action of remaining in the apostate PCSUSA for all those years is proof of that. If you had really agreed with Christianity and Liberalism you could not have remained in the PCUSA. While I know you're weren't of age in 1936, you still need to repent of approving of those did not join Machen in the OPC's defacto disciplinary action of declaring the PCUSA apostate. Where's your repentance for approving (implicit at least) for all those years of what they did to Machen. Your continuing the PCUSA speaks loudly and clearly you had no trouble with forgoing any discipline against those who deny the virgin birth of Christ or his bodily resurrection. A full repentance for your errors regarding Machen requires that you confess that you and your father were wrong for ever being a member of the PCUSA after 1936. Have you done that? If not, you have no moral basis for using Machen in calling TK to repentance.

Dear Andrew,

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but in case anybody, including you, is confused, my father has clearly repented of being in the PCUSA many times, including on this blog. For just one example, please read here.

-Joseph

Dear Andrew,

Dad was never a member of the PC(USA), nor was David. I was and I left it. If you'd read elsewhere on the blog, you'd know one of the questions I was asked on the floor of the PCA presbytery when, with my congregation, I transferred in was "what do you believe about women's ordination." I responded, "I've done it and I repent."

Still, I find your challenge quirky, dear brother. With Luther, my Christian life is a life of repentance. Put me down for repenting for all sorts of things beyond what you could imagine. Put me down for repenting right now of ever entering the PC(USA). Honestly, I thought that's been clear for many years, now.

Now will you allow me to quote Machen? Please?

Love,

PS: I've been a part of of PC(USA), PCA, RCA, and OPC congregations and have found not a lot of difference between them in their preaching and pastoral care. Luther would choke on today's so-called "Lutheran" churches as Machen would choke on today's so-called "Orthodox Presbyterian" churches. Read him and see.

Pastor,

You've always been clear about your repentance for your time in the PCUSA. I do have to say, having been a member of both PCA and OPC I've found them tending to be different and both quite a bit different from the few times I've been in a PCUSA church. But I've also found geography tends to make a big difference. Some parts of the country tend to get much more biblical preaching than others, to some degree undoubtedly driven by what the congregation will tolerate/require.

Dear Andrew,

It doesn't take much looking to learn that, though accepted to Princeton Seminary after graduating from Wheaton College in 1940, Dad never matriculated there, attending Faith Seminary in Wilmington, DE, instead. Dad chose that course precisely because of his Biblical commitments to the consternation of classmates at Wheaton who, like him, had grown up in the Northern Presbyterian church. Faith, like Westminster, was an early offshoot of Princeton resulting from the modernist controversy.

Nor was I ever a member of a PCUSA church.

Love in Christ,

>>Nor was I ever a member of a PCUSA church.

But he was a part of an OPC church, which church also had both Meredith Klines, senior and junior. 

Love,

Tim,
I realize this is just a bit off-target from the original post, but could you spend some time explaining how Meredith Kline and his errant theology ever got accepted and/or tolerated in the denomination that Machen helped to found? How could a supposedly confessional denomination such as the OPC--and the flagship Reformed seminaries where Kline Sr. taught--tolerate his de-historicizing of Genesis 2 (the so-called "framework hypothesis" which Kline appears to have smuggled into the evangelical world from Bernard Ramm) and Kline's flamingly antinomian "intrusionist" ethic--which in developed form as R2K, not only drags Christ from his throne but undermines the preaching of the Gospel by taking away Law and the objective grounds of God's holy wrath against unrepentant sinners--how could this man Kline's views ever have gotten even a toehold? They seem to echo part of the very Modernism that men such as Machen struggled against.

Add new comment