A 20th century classic for the 21st century church

Last night I finished Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. In my opinion, this should sit alongside Orthodoxy and Mere Christianity in every Christian's library, and if I had to pick three essential 20th century defenses of Christianity that a curious non-Christian should read, I would recommend these three. Machen doesn't reach the rhetorical heights of Chesterton or Lewis, but for clarity of thought and logic you can't do better.

When I discover a great book or great movie I'm eager to share it. If nothing else, blogging gives me an opportunity to do this. So in that spirit I'm going to be posting a series of excerpts from this book, taken mostly from the chapter on Salvation -- which was the most powerful chapter in the book for me. It should be noted that when Machen speaks of liberalism, he's speaking of theological liberalism -- not political -- although he does have some things to say about the collectivist ideas that were starting to encroach upon church and family life in the 1920's. The faultlines may have shifted somewhat since then, but the essential division remains. Yes, there are still old-fashioned liberals among us (the church) like the ones Machen was battling, but the problem now is more subtle.

Today, in many ostensibly conservative, evangelical, Bible-believing churches many a Sunday goes by without nary a mention of sin, the atonement, and the resurrected and reigning Christ. It's true in confessional churches and non-denominational churches, churches that haven't abandoned liturgy and churches that have (although at least if you have the creeds you have something of orthodox Christianity), struggling mainline churches and bursting at the seams megachurches. This is just another version of Christless Christianity, which Machen argued wasn't Christianity at all. Today's minister may still believe essential doctrines like original sin, the deity of Christ and the substitutionary atonement, but if these truths are largely ignored or taken for granted week in and week out then the effect on the listener is pretty much the same as if the minister denied those doctrines. One way this might manifest itself is as follows.

You have an unsaved friend who you've been after to go to church with you for a long time. Finally they agree to go, and you're hoping and praying that they'll hear a compelling presentation of the gospel. But instead of being confronted by the bad news of sin and the good news of Jesus, they get a sermon on "how to have a better marriage" or "how to find purpose in life" or any number of calls to moral improvement or political action. It's what sociologist Christian Smith has keenly identified as the new American religion of "moralistic therapeutic deism". Your friend will walk out of church, perhaps feeling better about himself, maybe even inspired to try harder to be a better person, but sadly he will walk out having never been given a chance to respond to the call of Christ. Don't get me wrong, it's possible to preach on those subjects in a way that leads to the cross, but it's hardly ever done. And if the assumption is that everyone in the pews (or theater chairs) is already saved, and that saved people don't need to hear cross-centered preaching, then there's no incentive to try.

It's easy to hold up Joel Osteen as an example of this. After all, he's a huge target! Osteen sees his role as that of a life coach, not a preacher of the gospel, and instead of sin (he doesn't use the word) being an offense against God's law, it's simply failing to reach your full potential. Yes, it's easy to criticize Pastor Joel, but I know there are a lot of churches with a cross on the wall and Baptist, Presbyterian or Bible in their name, that aren't doing much better at "preaching Christ and him crucified." Enough of my rambling...

Why is a book written over 80 years ago by a nondescript seminary professor, making a defense of Christianity against liberal critics who are long dead and gone, so relevant for us today? I'll let him answer:

The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance. In countless cases, Christianity is rejected simply because men have not the slightest notion of what Christianity is. An outstanding fact of recent Church history is the appalling growth of ignorance in the Church. Various causes, no doubt, can be assigned for this lamentable development. The development is due partly to the general decline of education--at least so far as literature and history are concerned. The schools of the present day are being ruined by the absurd notion that education should follow the line of least resistance, and that something can be "drawn out" of the mind before anything is put in. They are also being ruined by an exaggerated emphasis on methodology at the expense of content and on what is materially useful at the expense of the high spiritual heritage of mankind. These lamentable tendencies, moreover, are in danger of being made permanent through the sinister extension of state control. But something more than the general decline in education is needed to account for the special growth of ignorance in the Church. The growth of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity. But whatever be the causes for the growth of ignorance in the Church, the evil must be remedied. It must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other educational agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the chief business of the hour for every earnest Christian man.* Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is; and the fair and logical thing it to learn what Christianity is, not from its opponents, but from those who themselves are Christians.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 176-177

Indeed, truth cannot be stated clearly at all without being set over against error. Thus a large part of the New Testament is polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by the errors which had arisen in the churches. So it will always be, on account of the fundamental laws of the human mind...God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 174

* Machen practiced what he preached, founding Westminster Theological Seminary and writing numerous books and articles.