This is also available in Swedish.
Background
This year celebrates Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism’s 100 year anniversary. The situation today is somewhat different: the old liberal theology has on the whole lost its appeal. Still, there are many things that we can learn from the book: Machen’s presentation is so exemplary clear that it probably would be useful even if the subject matter would have become completely outdated, but the truth is that if you scratch the surface on the new problematic (to say the least) tendencies in Christendom, you will see the resemblances with the old.
If you scratch the surface on the new problematic (to say the least) tendencies in Christendom, you will see the resemblances with the old.
The liberalism Machen describes consists of an attempt to accommodate the Christian faith according to the modern worldview, meaning supernatural elements are discarded. What is left is the kernel of Christianity, in this modern understanding. At the time Machen was writing, liberal theology had entered many denominations and was also affecting the preaching in the churches and the message that is conveyed on the mission fields. Machen’s conviction is that liberals and Christians ought to part ways; preferably with the liberals leaving the denominations they have entered into, but that actually represent a different doctrine according to their constitutions.
Machen wants to show the reader that a separation is necessary. He is doing this by making the case that Christianity and liberalism are not merely two different variants of the same religion, but two completely different religions. Machen writes, “The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself.” (p. 1)
By limiting the question in this way, and focusing on the difference between Christianity and liberalism, rather than merely setting out to prove that Christianity is true and liberalism is false, Machen is able to present the issue in an almost overly clear way, so that the result is incontestable. Machen does touch on problems that liberalism has, but the main concern is to draw the difference between liberalism and Christian faith, in order to cast Christianity in a positive light by way of contrast.
Contents of the book
After the introduction (ch. 1), Machen presents the difference between Christianity and liberalism in six chapters: doctrine (ch. 2), God and man (ch. 3), the Bible (ch. 4), Christ (ch. 5), salvation (ch. 6), and the Church (ch. 7). These subjects are connected, and upon each one finds Christianity and liberalism teach nearly opposite ideas.
In Christianity we find a supernatural religion, where Christ is a supernatural Person who, through his identity and work, gives man salvation, free and without cost. Christianity is a religion of grace, where God alone saves.
Liberalism, on the other hand, excludes the supernatural, so that the Christian faith is about imitating Christ. The Bible certainly speaks about imitating Christ, but not as its only or primary message. Imitation of Christ as the primary aim of the Christian life turns a religion of grace into a gospel of works. Liberalism then, according to Machen, is a form of legalism.
View of sin
A fundamental difference between Christianity and liberalism is shown in how each views sin. Someone who has not come to know his own sin as something serious will find it difficult to see the need of salvation in Christ. Only when one is afflicted by his sin will he see the need of God performing the supernatural work of salvation. Only then can one understand the miracle salvation requires. The penal substitutionary suffering of Christ appears quite differently for those who see their sin as insignificant compared with those who have begun to comprehend the depth of their sin:
”The truly penitent man glories in the supernatural, for he knows that nothing natural would meet his need; the world has been shaken once in his downfall, and shaken again it must be if he is to be saved.” (p. 106)
Contrasting viewpoints
Rather than painting an entirely bleak picture, Machen is attentive to the good aspects of liberalism and draws attention to them out in his presentation. For example, he recounts a play where several people undergo a transformation. Initially they appear as soulless bodies, barely human, but then a stranger comes and begins to speak with them. Suddenly, these people blossom, becoming whole persons as a result of this outside person’s interest in and attention to them. The good was already in them, it only needed to be drawn out. “Certainly there is a large element of truth in this modern principle. That element of truth is found in the Bible. The Bible does certainly teach that the good that is already in man ought to be fostered in order to check the evil.” (p. 138) Through this acknowledgment, Machen is able to illustrate a key difference between Christian and liberalism: sin can be checked, but it cannot be defeated through mere cultivation of the good. Christianity is about something much more. The presentation therefore becomes more nuanced and the contrast clearer.
Machen also aims for clarity when he presents what liberalism really believes and teaches. Many liberals tended to downplay the differences between Christian teaching and liberalism’s beliefs, expressing themselves in ways that hid the distinctions. And so Machen is careful to express these distinctions with clarity. For example, liberals could speak as though the question were regarding the veracity of a specific miracle’s occurrence and one’s faith in it, when the concern actually hinged on whether one believed in miracles at all. They could speak about Jesus as “God,” but the crucial question is what you mean by the word “God.” Since the liberal theologians often had a view of God that gravitated towards the pantheistic, the phrase “Jesus is God” meant little more than that in Jesus the divine—that is found in all humans—appears with special clarity. What sounded like a Christian confession, therefore, contained content that was contrary to the Christian faith.
This charitable clarity, where the good in one’s opponent is recognized, while at the same time the real differences and disagreements are shown clearly, is in accordance with biblical ideals that we all are to strive for. Generosity, sincerity, and clarity make one’s argument and presentation of truth bright in more ways than one. Love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). “For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and understand” (2 Cor 1:13).
100 years later
Today, the liberal tendencies of Machen’s age are still present, but often appear in a different form. In academic theology, one can encounter Bible-critical theories that have their origin in a worldview in which the supernatural is not reckoned. However, if we look at tendencies that are threatening the theology in denominations that aspire to (or formerly aspired to) be classically Christian, the denial of the supernatural is not the great danger.
Affirming the supernatural is in reality not something specifically Christian. The core of the Christian faith includes supernatural elements, but you can preserve many of the supernatural elements in the Christian faith and still turn things upside down. As in Machen’s time, a shallow view of sin is much to blame. As sin is underestimated, we place too much confidence in man, which in turn demotivates us to resist the spirit of the age, or even our own hearts, when the truth of the Bible becomes uncomfortable. When sin is underestimated, the gospel of the penal substitutionary suffering of Christ will not be emphasized in sermons, if embraced at all.
The way forward: Some personal reflections
When Christianity is under attack in society, and the number of members in Christian denominations is decreasing, it can be tempting to tone down doctrine. By letting go of things that are not part of what one considers to be the core of the Christian faith, you can both lower the thresholds for non-Christians and make it easier for Christians to come to agreement with each other.
In Christianity and Liberalism, Machen shows a different way to respond. His principles—combining clarity with nuances and generosity, being gospel-centered without compromising, and separating from those who teach differently when it is necessary—can and should be applied today. This is precisely what the Bible teaches us to do. If we are to teach people everything that Jesus has commanded (Matt 28:20), we must separate ourselves from those who depart from the truth (see also 2 John 10).
This approach also provides the conditions for meaningful conversations with people within Christendom who do not profess the gospel. When both sides are open regarding their differences and at the same time interested in conversation, there is a possibility of understanding.
These types of conversations should also take place among Christians who agree upon the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture, but who differ in other doctrines. When Machen gives examples of doctrinal differences, it is notable that he mentions principles that are always pertinent when the goal is unity: taking differences seriously, concern for sound principles of biblical interpretation, and how doctrinal differences affects the doctrine of grace. Doctrinal discussions, where both parties listen to each other and at the same time take the differences seriously, have the teachings of grace (and especially the doctrine of justification) at the center. Desire to follow sound principles of interpretation leads to greater understanding and possibly also greater unity among conservative Christians.
Finally, the voice of our Christian confession is strengthened by this clarity as we bring the gospel to those who do not have one. We can trust that the power is in the gospel and not in our numbers, because “nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few” (1 Sam 14:6).