RSSMachen on Galatians
This week I begin a preaching series through Galatians.
In reading through J. Gresham Machen’s Notes on Galatians, I found this interesting quote. It first appeared in Christianity Today in January 1931. Machen died in 1937. I assume this comment is a product of Machen’s more mature thought:
“In the second place, Christians should by no means adopt a negative attitude toward art, government, science, literature, and other achievements of mankind, but should consecrate these things to the service of God. The seperateness of the Christian man from the world is nto to be manifested, as so many seem to think that it should be manifested, by the presentation to God of only an impoverished man; but it is to be manifested by the presentation to God of all man’s God-given powers developed to the full. That is the higher Christian humanism, a humanism based not upon human pride but upon the solid foundation of the grace of God (pg. 33).”
A great quote. I do not think this quote erases Machen’s sense of eschatological dualism (an area where I am in full argreement with Dr. Hart). It does raise the question, what does the consecration of culture (things secular) to God mean/look like?
I wonder would DGH thinks of the quote and how he understands it?
D Hart
September 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Bill, why do you keep instigating trouble? I’ll bite.
Notice, that Machen didn’t mention politics or government. So whatever his view of Christ and culture meant, it also involved keeping the Bible and prayer out of public schools, the church not taking a position on Prohibition, Christian individuals like Machen opposing jaywalking laws, and some praise for Jefferson as an American statesman. If the advocates of Christian culture can include those separationist opinions, then maybe we agree more than I thought.
Still, the point stands. Machen did not talk about the consecration of politics. Is it an indication of the impoverishment of our time that for so many Protestants the topic of Christ and culture winds up at the doors of magistrate?
W.H. Chellis
September 5th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
You see that… I am not instigating trouble but providing avenues of peace. With the exception of the bible/prayer in the public schools (I do not have a position here) I would be happy to stand with Machen on all the other fronts.
Although, I much prefer John Randolph or John C. Calhoun to Jefferson (in fact, I would prefer John Adams as well), I am happy to say a few nice things about Jefferson’s agrarianism and localism (I was born in Jeffersonville, NY you remember).
Maybe the sword does corrupt the discussion. How can we develop more agreement about Christianity and culture. Can we identify a common committment to Christian humanism? Christianity as the “mythic” metaphysical dream that unites the West? That has to beat any alternative, no?
stevez
September 6th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Machen said, “…Christians should by no means adopt a negative attitude toward art, government…but should consecrate these things to the service of God.”
Then Darryl said, “Notice, that Machen didn’t mention politics or government…Machen did not talk about the consecration of politics.”
Like Cat Stevens said, “Trouble, oh trouble, please be kind; I don’t want no fight, and I haven’t got a lot of time.”
Bill said, “With the exception of the bible/prayer in the public schools (I do not have a position here)…” No position? Isn’t that…sort of…I don’t know…apathetic? Despite my (alleged) Chinese Wall, I find that I have a great, big, blustry position.
Steve
W.H. Chellis
September 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I find myself ambivalent to public school. Would much prefer a parochial system. That way I can have my bible, my confession, and my prayers.
W.H. Chellis
September 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
DGH said, “Notice, that Machen didn’t say politics or government”… turns out he did. Darryl slipped one past me.
stevez
September 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
That is what I figured was behind the “no position” position. Can’t say it’s inconsistent, I’ll give it that much. But then you have to solve what in the world hyphenated education is exactly (hyphenated Christians I get); then you have to compromise just who exactly is ordained to nurture young souls, and that’s after you define nurture. It’s a whole thing.
Or Machen slipped one past Darryl. Of course, Darryl recently wrote somewhere around here that “there is plenty of transformationalist stuff in Machen.”
Steve
W.H. Chellis
September 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
An admission I must have missed.
D Hart
September 10th, 2007 at 6:59 am
You have to admit that consecration is different from transformation. When I pray over my morning both of wheat chex I am consecrating it to God. But to transform it, what would that involve? Turning it into cocoa puffs?
stevez
September 10th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
No, that would be silly. They would have to become Fruity Pebbles. OK, oat bran.
Seriously, that is part of my point with all this language of transformationism. I asked Phil if he could use different language than transform. He said he could. But I don’t know how since the language seems to reflect well with what is being said. And it seems on par with making wheat chex into oat bran. There really does seem a difference between “living quiet and peaceable lives” (consecration) and “changing the world” (transformation).
Steve
W.H. Chellis
September 10th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Listen, there must be a difference between consecration and transformation. I do not know what all this transformation talk it about. Nor, I guess, am I sure what consecration actually means. I know when I consecrate the bread and the wine, they remain bread and wine but are set apart, and in a Spiritual way, transformed.
No, my chex don’t become cocoa puffs. That would be transubstantiation. Nor are the cocoa puff in and under the chex. But, in my mind, the chex are Spiritually the cocoa puffs. I am trying to make a point here… I think.
Anyway, how does Steve get to waive his wand and define consecration as “living quiet and peaceable lives”? Does he find that in Machen or did he pull it out of the Stevez lexicon?
stevez
September 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Ok. Sounds like much toiling about words to me. But, then again, I am delusional. I have no idea what you are saying about cereal. There, now we are even.
Bill, you have called me way too a-historical. That may be. But, honestly, while I like to think I am as historical as the next reformed confessionalist, I don’t know why everything has to be located so precisely. Seems…wooden. Maybe your cereal has too much fiber?
OK, forget defintions of consecration and transubstantiation. All I am saying is that there is are huge differences, I think, between “living quiet and peaceable lives as covenant-keepers” and “transforming the world.” The latter seems as silly–in all its forms, mean and nice–as thinking our chex are transforming into oat bran. Why do our Christian lives have to be translated into “transformation”? Why can’t we just be neck-deep in God’s world as quiet and peaceble pilgrims? Nobody, at least me, is against improving things or making things better to some extent. But why can’t we do it with more sobriety and sanity, as if our eternity *doesn’t* depend on it? To be honest, I change very little in my pilgrimage. Am I less spiritual? And for all the cheery rhetoric, I find those who want us to transform really effect very little themselves; they seem a lot like me, just trying to get to the next day and then te next Sabbath to receive the Gospel again.
OK, I can’t help myself: consecration seems to capture this notion of pilgrimage a whole lot better than transformation.
Steve