Why Machen is Important for the Church Today:A Reflection on Ch. 7 of Christianity and Liberalism (Part 2)

Though Machen’s counsel is invaluable for the contemporary church in many ways, three appropriations introduced in Part 1 will be the focus in this article: (1) the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, (2) separation from liberal churches, and (3) liberalism, universalism, inclusivism, and pluralism.

The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man

Because liberal theologians like von Harnack and Ritschl emphasized the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man at the heart of liberalism, I begin with Machen’s acknowledgement that such emphases contain some truth: all human beings, as creatures of the one Creator and thus image bearers of God (Gen. 1:26–28), have God as their Father in the sense of creation. As Paul preached (Acts 17:24, 26, 27–29):

“The God who made the world and everything in it . . . gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. . . . He is actually not far from each one of us, for

‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring . . . .”

Alluding to the creation narrative of Adam (Gen. 2:7) and citing the pagan poets Epimenides of Crete (sixth to fifth century BC) and Aratus (“Phaenomena;” third century BC), the apostle affirms from Scripture and from the general human sense of a divine Creator the universal recognition that all human beings have God as their Father.^[1] Consequently, all human beings belong to one brotherhood, in the sense of creation.

1. In making their statements, Epimenides and Aratus referred to Zeus, and Paul transposed their truthful affirmations into a different key, that is, a reference to God the Creator as revealed in Scripture.

Though it balks at the liberal distortion of these truths, the contemporary church should acknowledge “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:6) and thus the unity of the human race: we are all sons and daughters of God the Father in the sense of creation. Accordingly, cooperative efforts between the peoples of the world, including Christians united with non-Christians in certain endeavors, should resonate with all human beings. These endeavors include efforts to halt genocide; to bring relief to the poor, marginalized, orphans, widows, and victims of natural disasters; to share resources and technology for the betterment of the disadvantaged; to advocate for a culture of life against a culture of death; to encourage biblically sanctioned human rights—these and other similar efforts contribute to the flourishing of human society, and our brothers and sisters by virtue of their origin are recipients of good deeds.

Christians rightly join itself to such efforts, reflecting Machen’s endorsement that Christianity “can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man” (133). At the same time, again following Machen, the church rightly embraces a different “Christian” notion of brotherhood: in the sense of salvation, only those who are rescued from sin by Jesus Christ constitute “the brotherhood of the redeemed” (134).

By affirming these two notions of brotherhood—the one, a universal idea in the sense of creation; the other, an exclusive idea in the sense of redemption—the contemporary church echoes Machen’s intriguing affirmation of both a universality and an exclusivity at the heart of Christianity: First and universally, the church indiscriminately communicates the gospel to all peoples everywhere, in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). Racial and ethnic prejudice, personal distaste for people of a different political persuasion, partiality, and indifference to the plight of the lost cannot be allowed to deter the church from expanding an invitation to the Christian brotherhood to all human beings.

Moreover, Christian ministry engages in good works not only to the “inside brotherhood” but the “outside brotherhood” as well. Paul and Barnabas exemplified such orientation, gladly obeying the exhortation of James, Peter, and John: “they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10). Paul continued and insisted on this thrust for all churches: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Gal. 6:10). James demanded the same inclination: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).

Second and exclusively, the church acknowledges the severe limitations of such loving service toward people in need. It prioritizes instead its evangelistic efforts that urge sinful people to repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ alone—exclusively—to save them. As the gospel ignites faith (Rom. 10:17), as the good news brings about regeneration (1 Pet. 1:23–25), as divine grace prompts belief (Acts 18:27), the Christian brotherhood expands, which is the hope of the world.

Separation from Liberal Churches

Machen theologically and strategically advocates for conservative Christians to remain in their churches and protect/reclaim them from liberalism; at the same time, he realistically acknowledges that such a conserving presence and influence may not ultimately succeed. As the saying goes, Machen practiced what he preached: in the 1930s, he led a group of conservative ministers and lay people out of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) and formed the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), shortly later re-named the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Other examples, like the Conservative Baptist movement that emerged from the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention (1943), could be cited.

In our contemporary church context, two similar developments stand out: the Anglican Church of North America and the Methodist Church.

In the early 2000s, conservative members of the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada broke from their Episcopal/Anglican churches and formed the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) under the auspices of Anglican bishops in Africa and South America. The issue at the heart of their departure was growing concern about the disconcerting pervasiveness and expansion of liberalism—particularly abandonment of biblical authority and truthfulness and departure from historic Christianity—in the existing communions.^[2]

2. For further discussion see John Sandeman, “Conservative Anglicans Reject Church of England and Archbishop of Canterbury,” Christianity Today online, April 21, 2023.

In 2022, conservative Methodists broke from the United Methodist Church (UMC) and formed the Global Methodist Church (GMC). In large part, discussion about and actual disaffiliation awaits the 2024 General Conference of the UMC; however, some conservative churches have already joined the GMC. As with the ACNA, the key issue is biblical authority as particularly applied to LGBTQ+ issues.^[3]

3. Megan Fowler, “As Methodist Exits Hit 5,800, Some Churches Find Paths Blocked,’ Christianity Today online, June 12,2023.

As Machen prophesied and warned, such departure could cost the fledgling conservative congregations their church property. And it has. The Falls Church, which left the Episcopal Church in the United States in 2006, lost a court battle and had to give up its 250-year-old property.^[4] Still, this future of financial/property loss for conservative churches is not set: while decisions about church properties are still a year off in the United Methodist Church, some early signs point to broad (even financial) support for the new GMC.^[5]

Departure of members from their local church, and disaffiliation of churches from their denomination, are somber and severe decisions. On the one hand, the unity of the church is broken—a serious matter. Jesus advocated (John 10:14–16) and prayed (John 17:11, 20–23) for the unity of his people. Paul presented a vision for the church characterized by unity (Ephesians 4) and denounced all sins—eight of the fifteen “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19–21)—that divide the church. The apostle chastised faction-riddled congregations: the church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10–13; 3:1–5), which was racked by divisions between different socioeconomic parties (1 Cor. 11:17–34); the church of Philippi, marked by squabbles between members (Phil. 4:2–3); and the church in Rome, plagued by worldly judgment and carnal despising of members due to differences in personal scruples (Romans 14). Such divisions belie the commonalities that unite church members: “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4–6).^[6]

6. For further discussion see Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 168–78.

On the other hand, and as Machen so masterfully and cautiously promotes, departure of members and disaffiliation of churches is a tragic necessity. Given the liberal (members, churches) elements’ abandonment of essential matters, conservative (members, churches) must withdraw. In such cases, the operative framework echoes Paul’s words (2 Cor. 6:14–16):

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God.

How do we know these essential matters, the abandonment of which prompts conservatives (members or churches) to withdraw from creeping liberalism? We ask ourselves these questions—derived from Scripture, early church creeds, the principles of Protestantism, and the distinctives of evangelicalism—with corresponding observations:

• What does Scripture emphasize? Liberalism reconstitutes or deserts the gospel;
• What is Scripture? Liberalism repudiates the inspiration, truthfulness (inerrancy), authority, sufficiency, necessity, clarity, and power of the Word of God;
• What is the view of God? Liberalism revises or forsakes classical theism (for example, God is omniscient, even knowing all future matters), including the doctrine of the Trinity;
• What is the work of God? Liberalism rejects the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and retools the doctrine of providence as a generic progressivism rather than the outworking of the sovereign, eternal plan of God;
• Who is Jesus Christ? Liberalism compromises or denies the full deity and full humanity of the God-man, only appreciating him for teaching the Golden Rule and being a stellar example of obedience, faith, self-sacrifice, moral living, God-consciousness, and the like;
• What did Jesus Christ accomplish? Liberalism reworks or discards the atoning sacrifice of Christ by which he as our substitute paid in full the penalty for our sins, offering instead a Jesus who is the outstanding example of love;
• Who is the Holy Spirit and what does he do? Liberalism substitutes or ignores the full deity and the essential work (for example, in applying salvation) of the Spirit of God, seeing him instead as a general influence for grace and peace even apart from Christ and the gospel;
• What is the view of human beings and sin? Liberalism exaggerates the doctrine of divine image bearing (such that human beings are nearly god-like) and/or minimizes the devastating effects of sin (such that human beings are somewhat goodness-impaired but largely upstanding, God-pleasing people);
• What is salvation? Liberalism denounces salvation as rescue from the devastating guilt and corruption of sinners and locates it in immanent forces (for example, political revolutions, economic prospects, educational opportunities) that bring out liberation from temporal oppression and earthly suffering;
• What is the church? Liberalism revisions the people of God as the brotherhood and sisterhood of all human beings, all of whom have God as their Father (or Mother) simply due to the fact of their personal existence;
• What is the ultimate hope for the world? Liberalism identifies this hope with the kingdom of God, conceived as an idyllic reality characterized by love, peace, prosperity, justice, and other expressions of the highest of human aspirations.

Liberalism, Universalism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism

Though universalism, inclusivism, and pluralism were inchoate positions in Machen’s day, in the twentieth century they began to flourish as a logical extension of liberalism. Though many theologians discuss these topics under the doctrine of salvation, they can also be considered under the doctrine of the church because they ask and answer the question “who composes the people of God?” Because universalism, inclusivism, and pluralism present a growing challenge, the contemporary church should be warned and stand on the alert for these tragic developments.

Universalism is “the position that if not in life, then after death, all people will ultimately embrace salvation.”^[7] It is based on a misunderstanding of Paul’s affirmation that “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18). Liberalism maintains that if Christianity insists that all people are condemned because of the one sin of Adam, then given Paul’s parallelism between Adam and Christ, Christianity must also insist that all people are justified—not condemned—and live forever because of the work of Christ.

7. Gregg R. Allison, The Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), s. v. “universalism.”

This interpretation suffers from extracting Paul’s point from its context, in which he emphasizes, in the case of the second part of his parallelism, the necessity of appropriating the work of Christ: “if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). According to the first part of Paul’s parallelism, all people die—one aspect of their condemnation—because of Adam’s trespass; this judgment is automatic, applied without human assent to it. According to the second part of the parallelism, those people who appropriate God’s grace expressed through the gift of being declared “righteous” will live forever; this justification is not automatic, applied only to those who assent to it through the gospel. And the liberal notion that people who have died will receive a second—or fifth, or twentieth—opportunity to embrace the gospel sometime after their death is never affirmed in Scripture; rather, it contradicts its insistence that “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). As the church has historically affirmed over against universalism, there is no hope for a post-mortem chance to embrace the redemption accomplished by Christ so that all people will eventually be saved.

Liberalism and its hope for universal salvation—that all people will eventually become the people of God—is wrong and to be avoided.

Next, Inclusivism is “the position that salvation comes through Christ yet extends beyond Christianity to include adherents of religions like Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.”^[8] It is opposed to exclusivism, though both positions operate with two statements:

8. Allison, Compact Dictionary, s. v. “inclusivism.”

1. Jesus Christ and his work “is the ground of salvation; through his life, death, and resurrection, Christ accomplished redemption”;
2. “faith in Jesus’s person and work is necessary to experience salvation”; that is, one must hear the gospel, repent of one’s sins, and believe in Christ in order to appropriate redemption.^[9]

9. Allison, Compact Dictionary, s. v. “inclusivism.”

Exclusivism, the historical position of the church and that to which conservative Christians and churches continue to hold, affirms both statements. Inclusivism, flowing from liberalism, affirms only the first statement; thus, adherents of religions other than Christianity can be saved only by Jesus Christ and the salvation that he accomplished, but they don’t need to hear the gospel, repent of their sins, and trust Jesus by faith to save them. Muslims, for example, by heeding the tenets of Islam, may be “Christians” saved by Christ, though they have never heard of or believed in him.

Liberalism and its hope for inclusivistic salvation—that even apart from the gospel, non-Christians will be included in the people of God—is wrong and to be avoided.

Finally, Pluralism is “the position that salvation comes equally through all religions—Christianity, for Christians; Judaism, for Jews; Islam, for Muslims; Buddhism, for Buddhists; Hinduism, for Hindus; and more.”^[10] Unlike inclusivism, pluralism (which holds to neither of the two statements noted previously) denies that Jesus Christ and his work “is the ground of salvation for people other than Christians. Rather, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and more have other ways of salvation (e.g., Moksha for Hinduism, the Noble Eightfold Path for Buddhism) equally as valid for their adherents as Christ is for Christianity.”^[11] While classical liberalism at least maintained some connection between Christ and salvation, more contemporary forms of liberalism have severed that connection.

Liberalism and its hope for pluralistic salvation—that by various means (even apart from Christ and the gospel—people may become part of the people of God—is wrong and to be avoided.

Time and space prevent me from only mentioning a few other appropriations of Machen’s counsel to the church. First, the lowering of standards for church leaders is as disconcerting now as it was in his day. Second, Machen’s clarion call for a renewal of Christian education is as needed today as it was one hundred years ago. Third, Machen’s appeal for important virtues—for example, honesty, integrity, kindness, understanding of the position of others, avoidance of univocal language—to be pronounced in discussions between conservative Christians and conservative churches and their liberal counterparts is an appeal that rings true. At the same time, all parties involved should be realistic and not naïve as they engage in these serious and severe discussions, with decisions made wisely and not prematurely.

A return to Machen’s distinction between what is substantive and what is trifling completes this essay. For liberalism, what is substantive is the way of Jesus and the ethic of love, while the gospel and doctrine are trifles. For Christianity, what is substantive is the gospel of Jesus and doctrine (especially that of the cross), with the way of Jesus and the ethic of love not as trifling matters but as practices that flow from the substantive matters of Christianity.