RSSMachen Who?
Darryl has been pressing the claims of J. Gresham Machen. A powerful ally indeed. So I have gone back to reread Machen. Dr. Hart is the premier Machen scholar and so I suspect he will be able to help me.
In the past, here on DRC, I have quoted from Machen’s Selected Shorter Writings (superbly edited by DGH). Amidst that important volume are some important articles about Christianity and its relationship to politics/ culture. Two whole chapters are given to dealing with issues of the Church and Society (Part Seven) and Christianity and Culture (Part Eight). Interesting stuff.
For instance, in Christianity and Liberty (Chapter 31) we read about the relationship of the bible to human liberty, “From such a slavery, which is already stalking throught the earth in the materialistic paternalism of the modern state, from such a world of unrelieved drabness, we seek escape in the high adventure of the Christian religion. Men call us, indeed, devotees of a book. They are right. We are devotees of a book. But the book to which we are devoted is the Magna Charta of human liberty– the book which alone makes men free.” (pg. 359).
Now, with Hart (and I have happily affirmed it to be true) Machen reminds us that this freedom is not to be confused with civil liberty but “a liberty that enters into the depts of the soul.” (360). Yet, Machen refers to civil liberty as a “valuable by-product of Christianity (360).”
In chapter 36, Christianity and Culture, Machen expounds his view on the relationship saying, “A third solution, fortunately, is possible– namely, consecration. Instead of destroying the arts and sciences or being indifferent to them, let us cultivate them with all the enthusiasm of the veriest humanist, but as the same time consecrate them to the service of God. Instead of stifling the pleasures afforded by the acquisition of knowledge or by the appreciation of what is beautiful, let us accept these pleasures as the gift of a heavenly Father… let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God (pg. 402).”
On the next page we read, “Furthermore the field of Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade merely the nations, but also all of human thought….(pg. 403).
In his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen makes much the same case. He is every ready to deny that the faith can be abused by social manipulators but never denies that paradox that an otherworldly Christian faith WILL have an impact on this world. Machen writes, “Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish these 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 sastisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity… Our Lord said: ‘Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” (pg. 152).
A couple of pages later, after expounding the social aspects of the Christian faith, Machen writes, “Plainly, them, the Christian man may not simplify his probem 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 buisness 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 Christiantiy‘ (pg. 155).”
So what gives? Did Machen recant? When and to whom? Is Darryl really hiding behind Machen’s skirt?
Phil
April 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
We see a similar problem when Hart agrees with Machen in Lost Soul that Christian schools should “be profoundly Christian” (Lost Soul, p. 93). In this same address to the Kuyper-friendly NUCS, Machen said that “the religion of the Christian man embraces the whole of his life,” not just his church or private life, as per Hart. Christian education should bring a “profound Christian permeation of every human activity, no matter how secular the world may regard it as being. . .” (Machen, same source, p. 81). Machen recognized that mathematical instrumentalities could be taught by an unbeliever, yet “the bearing of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian . . . [which is why] Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all, of the curriculum of the school,” including the secular academics (p. 81; cf. Clark on bus driving and monetary policy). Now if this is the case, and if further these secular academics are samples of secular culture, then Christian school educators of Machen’s stripe are busily “de-bracketing” Christianity from American culture. Thus, for Hart to applaud Machen above is to undermine his goal to bracket Christianity from public life (cf. Secular Life, p. 176).
D Hart
April 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, “you want the Machen? You can’t handle the Machen!”
On the responsibility of the church:
There are certain things which you cannot expect from such a true Christian church. In the first place, you cannot expect from it any cooperation with non-Christian religion or with a non-Christian program of ethical culture. There are those who tell us that the Bible ought to be put into the public schools, and that the public schools should seek to build character by showing the children that honesty is the best policy and that good Americans do not lie nor steal. With such programs a true Christian church will have nothing to do. . . .
In the second place, you cannot expect from a true Christian church any official pronouncements upon the political or social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use of force. Important are the functions of the police, and members of the church, either individually or in such special associations as they may choose to form, should aid the police in every lawful way in the exercise of those functions. But the function of the church in its corporate capacity is of an entirely different kind. Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission. . . .
The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life — nay, all the length of human history — is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all, Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that He has revealed Himself to us in His Word and offered us communion with Himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation, for individuals or for nations, save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whosever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth — nay, all the wonders of the starry heavens — are as the dust of the street. (1933)
Machen and the two cities:
Religion is thought to be necessary for a healthy community; and therefore for the sake of the community [people] are willing to have a church. Whatever may be thought of this attitude toward religion, it is perfectly plain that the Christian religion cannont 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 regareded 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 14:26). Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certainly meant that the rlationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those that exist between husband and wife and paranet and child. Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them. Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. (1923)
Machen on freedom of speech:
Tolerance, moreover, means not merely tolerance for that with which we are agreed but also tolerance for that to which we are most thoroughly opposed. A few years ago there was passed in New York the abominable Lusk Law requiring private teachers in any subjects whatever to obtain a state license. It was aimed, I believe, at the Socialists, and primarily at the Rand School in New York City. Now certainly I have no sympathy with Socialism. Because of its hostility to freedom it seems to me to be just about the darkest thought that has ever entered the mind of man. But certalinly such opposition to Socialism did not temper in the slightest degree my opposition to that preposterous law. Tolerance, to me, does not mean merely tolerance for what I hold to be good, but also tolerance for what I hold to be abominably bad. (1923)
I am for my part an inveterate propagandist; but the same right of propaganda which I desire for myself I want to see also in the possession of others. What absurdities are uttered in the name of psuedo-Americanism today! People object to the Roman Catholics, for example, because they engage in “propoganda.” But why should they not engage in propoganda? And how chould we have any respect for them, if holding the view which they do hold, that outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation, they did not engage in propoganda first, last and all the time. Clearly they have a right to do so, and clearly we have a right to do the same. (1923)
The Christianity and Culture piece from which Bill quoted was the pre-war Machen. I think he was more post-mill before the war. Afterward, the idea of Christendom made no sense and I think he re-thought the relationship between Christ and culture.
On the Christian education stuff, yes, I concede it sounds a bit Kuyperian. He was speaking to Dutch Calvinists after all. But if you look at those essays and compare them to Van Til on Christian education, you see that Machen begins with Christian schools as an expression of civil liberty. For
Van Til they testife to the anti-thesis.
W.H. Chellis
April 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I think I can handle the Machen. I am not sure that I find anything objectionalbe or that undermines my position in the quotes you have presented.
Ok, maybe I am less comfortable with community propaganda in the 20th Century. I would have used the arm of the state against it. Nor am I comfortable with radical muslims getting free rights to spread their vile hatred of the West. But with these two exceptions. I am fully comfortable with what Machen is saying. Where we disagree we disagree because he was fundamentally a libertarian and I a traditionalist. No theological distinction divides us, I think (at least you have not made me blink yet).
Are you sure that Machen rethought Christendom and rejected it? You are the scholar. But, Machen was nothing if not a conservative, southeran gentlemen. It seems to me that no other part of the country so consistently “felt” like European Christendom. Could a man like Machen give up such a heritage? Seems more like it defined him. O.k. maybe the issues is definition of Christendom?
D Hart
April 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Don’t forget that for a Southern gentleman, the loss of 1865 gives the fall of Christendom a different meaning. That’s why I think Machen was always somewhat ambivalent about the progressive reading of history supplied by post-mills.
I also would add, as Bill has conceded, Machen’s libertarianism goes pretty far down and is an awkward appendix to the National Covenant.