The Reformed Tradition and the Transformation of Culture

The Reformed Tradition and the Transformation of Culture

By D. G. Hart

D. G. Hart, the Westminster Theological Seminary librarian in Philadelphia, wrote this essay to present an alternative vision for cultural transformation gleaned from the ideas of J. Gresham Machen. To have a better appreciation of this alternative, one must compare Machen’s vision with the two dominant views, that of the neo-evangelicals and the ideas of H. Richard Niebuhr.

Before presenting Machen’s stance on cultural transformation, D. G. Hart mentioned first his personal assessment of the man. He recognized Machen as “one of the most influential evangelical scholars of the twentieth century” and “had been a leading spokesman for conservative Protestantism” from 1906 to 1929 (p. 305)." With the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929, “Machen became the leading conservative in the Northern Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)” (ibid.). This decision to start a new seminary later resulted to the formation of Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. Unfortunately, his death created a leadership vacuum that later resulted to the division of his followers into two groups concerning the relationship of Christianity to culture, with each group came up with its own unique approach. D. G. Hart elaborates more on the outcome of such leadership vacuum:

“In the  early 1940s two  visions for  preserving Protestant orthodoxy emerged, the first represented by Machen s successors at Westminster who were also leaders in the OPC, the second by those who founded Fuller Theological Seminary and were active in broader evangelical circles. Both sides sought to emulate Machen's scholarly defense of Christianity and yet produced significantly different approaches to the relationship between Christianity and culture. For those  at Westminster, such as Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, and Ned Stonehouse, Machen's departure from the mainline church to form a new denomination crystallized their mentor's efforts and they, in turn, directed their energies toward cultivating the OPC. For the leaders of the neo-evangelical movement, such as Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, WIlbur Smith, and Edward J. Carnell, Machen's scholarship and engagement with the broader culture served as a model for evangelical efforts to restore Christian civilization in America. The crucial difference between these  different agendas for conservative scholarship and engagement with the broader culture served as a model for evangelical efforts to restore Christian Protestantism was the doctrine of the church. For OPC leaders,  church polity and confessional standards took priority in questions concerning evangelism and outreach and so made them hesitant to join interdenominational programs that obscured their Presbyterian convictions. The architects of the neo-evangelical movement, in contrast, took a more pragmatic stance and minimized ecclesiastical and some doctrinal matters in order to reach the wider culture with the gospel” (p. 306).

D. G. Hart clearly states that his purpose in writing this essay is not to identify which of these two groups is more faithful to Machen’s vision, but rather “to explore Machen’s attitude toward the church and its relationship to culture in an effort to think through the difficulties that modern culture poses for the Reformed tradition” (p. 308).

After mentioning his personal assessment of Machen’s influence and the aftermath of the man’s death, D. G. Hart voiced out his bewilderment about the delayed response of Reformed voice and visibility of neo-evangelicals in public square. He finds such delay difficult to accept for part of the distinctive marks of Reformed tradition is the affirmation of the inseparability of gospel proclamation and cultural transformation, and the idea of priesthood of all believers. D. G. Hart explains further the importance of these Reformed marks:

“A hallmark of Reformed thought  is  the  idea  that Christianity involves the transformation of culture as well as the proclamation of the gospel. According to this view, the gospel does more than prepare the soul for life after death. Indeed, because God deemed his creation to be good, Christians need not renounce so-called 'secular' pursuits in politics, education, business or art in order to be witnesses to the gospel. Furthermore, the Protestant idea of the priesthood of all believers teaches that all lawful vocations, whether in the church or in society, are significant in God's sight because he is the Lord of all aspects of life and works his redemptive purposes through them. Salvation in this view is  not a rejection of the world but is  rather a restoration of the fallen world to its  original goodness. The church and individual Christians further the redemptive process by consecrating all areas of life to the glory of God” (p. 307).

On the other hand, the neo-evangelicals are more vocal in declaring their ideas in public sphere. D. G. Hart compared these two distinct voices: 

“Indeed, evangelical groups, who have been less constrained by the doctrine of the church, have been more visible in American public life than the Reformed whose ecclesiology and theology has often proven cumbersome to cultural engagement. To be sure, those in the Reformed tradition have been engaged with and have offered perceptive critiques of modern intellectual and cultural trends. But they have not been the ones gaining media coverage or visiting with the president of the United States. Instead, the neo-evangelical movement has been much more visible and active in the last fifty years, whether through the learned writings of Carl Henry, the evangelistic crusades of Billy Graham, or the therapeutic ministry of Bill Hybels. The lesson of recent evangelical history seems to be that traditional Presbyterianism is  ill-suited for achieving the very thing that made the Reformed perspective distinctive, namely, the transformation of culture”(pp. 307-308).

And then, D. G. Hart shares his suspicion that perhaps the reason for such a delayed response from the Reformed camp is due to the influence of H. Richard Niebuhr:

“Part of the blame for this ironic twist may be that the chief interpreter of the Reformed tradition on culture is H. Richard Niebuhr's classic work, Christ and Culture. In this little book Niebuhr contrasts five  different ways in which Christians have reconciled the claims of Christ and culture. Perhaps the most significant aspect of Niebuhr's argument for our purposes is his distinction between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions on Christianity and culture. In contrast to the Lutheran teaching of the two kingdoms which sees Christ and culture in tension this side of Christ's second coming, Niebuhr argues that Calvinists do not endure the suffering of this age only to wait for salvation in the  next. Rather, the  Reformed tradition seeks to transform culture, endeavoring to save human nature and society, thus establishing God's kingdom on earth. Even though theologians in the  Reformed tradition  ever since Calvin have made sharp distinctions between the spiritual and the temporal, linking the kingdom of God clearly with the church as opposed to a political or social order, Niebuhr has become the last word for many on the tranformationist impulse of Reformed theology” (p. 308).

However, exploring the ideas of Machen, D. G. Hart argues that Niebuhr’s stance is not the only voice that represents the Reformed tradition. In Machen, we find a vision of cultural transformation that is both faithful to Reformed theology and sensitive to the issues of the time. Machen has a high view of the ministry of the church, and at the same time, he is informed as to the challenges that cultural diversity and religious freedom that Reformed tradition has to take seriously in this task of cultural transformation. With this two-fold convictions, inescapable implications would be a deeper commitment in the visible church and a more cautious stance as to the task of becoming cultural guardians.

-o-o-o-

In presenting Machen’s vision, D. G. Hart divides his essay into five parts: the consecration of culture, the separateness of the church, relationship between church and culture, modern predicament, and the responsibility of the church in our time.

The Consecration of Culture

Before presenting the first part of the essay, D. G. Hart narrated how divine providence prepared the man for the task:

“Machen was certainly well-positioned to  apply the  cultural insights of the Reformed faith. The son of a prominent Baltimore lawyer,  Machen attended the  best schools,  read widely in classical and English literature,  was fluent  in  French and German, and had a good knowledge of Victorian art and drama. He did his undergraduate work and a year of graduate study in the classics at Johns Hopkins University where he graduated first in his class. He received his theological education at Princeton Seminary, during which time he also earned an MA in philosophy from Princeton University. He eventually pursued advanced study in New Testament at Marburg and Gouttingen universities. His parents reared him in Franklin Street Church, a prominent and wealthy Old School Presbyterian congregation in  Baltimore. Machen's ecclesiastical and educational associations allowed him to rub shoulders with Northeastern elites throughout his life, from president Woodrow Wilson in the home or his youth, to John Rockefeller, Jr. at the family summer cottage at Seal Harbor, Maine. A large  aspect of Machen's appeal to  many of the fundamentalist  students who studied with him at Princeton Seminary was clearly his social status” (p. 309).

In his fight against liberalism, Machen maintained a respectful attitude: 

“Interestingly, Machen's genteel demeanor was evident even in some of his sharpest strictures of liberal Protestantism. Throughout his biblical scholarship, where he challenged the conclusions of higher critics, Machen was always respectful of his foes' erudition and breadth of learning.  He thought  it  especially harmful for conservatives to underestimate the force of liberal arguments and 'dismiss the "higher critics" en masse with a few words of summary condemnation.' So too, in Christianity and Liberalism where he argued that liberal Protestantism was an altogether different religion from historic Christianity-he declared that liberalism was 'un-Christian'-Machen did not want this criticism to be misconstrued. He explained that the word 'un-Christian' was primarily a technical one, meaning that liberalism departed from traditional Christian understandings of God, the Bible, sin and grace. It did not mean, however, that liberals were scoundrels unworthy of respect”(p. 310).

Such respect is rooted in his recognition of the fact of common grace:

“Machen's understanding of common grace allowed him to  see that the  regenerate and unregenerate alike were capable of valuable insights and worthy endeavors in a variety of human activities. Socrates and Goethe, Machen noted for example, were not Christians but still deserved respect from Christians because they towered 'immeasurably above the common run of men.' If Christians were greater than such figures,  it  was certainly not because of any inherent superiority as humans but by virtue of God's saving grace, 'an undeserved privilege' that ought to make the believer 'humble rather than contemptuous'”(ibid.).

Machen too was active in cultural engagement, which he demonstrated in “working with liberal Christians and non-believers in a number of humanitarian and social causes” (ibid.). Despite theological differences, he affirmed numerous common ties that justify working with them. Examples of these are “'ties of blood, of citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor...” (ibid.). Because of this belief, Machen actively participated in political affairs:

“As a  result,  Machen followed political affairs and participated as much as possible in the political process. He was an active member of the Sentinels of the Republic, a lobbying group organized by Massachusetts business men to oppose the Eighteenth Amendment, and gave testimony before Congress against the Child Labor Amendment and the formation of the Federal Department of Education. Machen's political concerns were not limited to national affairs. Toward the end of his life while a resident of Philadelphia he took an active interest in city politics and during public debate over proposed jay-walking legislation testified before the City Council”(pp. 310-311).

Machen’s understanding of the relationship between Christianity and culture can be observed throughout his writings. Through “scholarship, he expressed a  vision of Christian involvement  in  cultural and intellectual life that was clearly different from the pietistic and revivalistic otherworldliness of many fundamentalists” (p. 311). We can see Machen articulated such “vision in an address before the 1912 school year at Princeton Seminary, entitled 'Christianity and Culture.' There he considered the  problem of the  gospel's relationship  to learning” (ibid.). It is exactly in this relationship that Machen saw an appropriate response true to Reformed tradition “was the consecration of culture” (ibid.).

“ ‘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 at the same time consecrate them to the service of our 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  gifts of a  heavenly Father. Instead  of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the  other hand withdrawing from the world into  a  sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God’ ” (ibid.).

-o-o-o-

The Separateness of the Church

Machen’s stance on culture affirms both cultural engagement and withdrawal. This is puzzling at first sight. However, Machen’s concept of culture is the reason for his active involvement in cultural transformation. On the other hand, his ideas about the church and its ministry caused him to withdraw from the same culture. This distinct outlook about the character of the church caused Machen to criticize Protestant modernism. Such outlook was informed by his commitment to the Westminster Standards.

For Machen, “the church's primary task was to witness to  Christ” (p. 312). For him, “Christianity was not a religious experience that transcended doctrine nor was it  an inward feeling of which doctrine was a manifestation. Rather, Christianity was 'a life founded upon a doctrine ... a life produced not merely by exhortation, not merely by personal contacts, but primarily by an account of something that happened, a piece of good news, or a gospel.' This good news was that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he buried, and that he rose again the third day'” (ibid.).

The propositional and informational nature of the gospel “meant that Christian faith could not be severed from intellectual assent” (ibid.). And since “the gospel depended upon historical events it could not be located in the realm of ethical or philosophical ideas” (ibid.). And yet. The gospel “did not end with history” (ibid.) For Machen, “the narrative of redemption was always expressed in doctrinal terms” (ibid.). By this statement, Machen meant that “the gospel told  about an event and also provided an interpretation of that event” (p. 313). The very nature of the gospel then “was doctrinal” (ibid.) and this would imply that for the church to implement its task of proclamation, careful attention to theology is required.

The above commitment expressed in concrete terms means that the kind of witnessing a Presbyterian church has to perform was restricted by the Westminster Standards. This would mean that an ordained Presbyterian minister affirms that the Bible is “ 'the only infallible rule of faith and practice' ”  and that the  Westminster Confession of Faith contains “ ‘the system of doctrine taught in Scripture' ” (ibid.). For Machen, these ordination vows limit not only the content of preaching and teaching, but also restrict the use of church fund.

In the eyes of Machen, liberal ministers violate their ordination vows and therefore they “had no business acting in an official capacity in the denomination” (p. 314). And since “Presbyterianism rests upon a system of church courts (from the  session to the General Assembly) to insure uniformity of teaching and practice,” “Presbyterians could not merely be content with the soundness of their own minister or their own congregation” (p. 315). Machen “thought  that ministers, elders and church members who failed to follow denominational affairs and discipline those ministers who violated the church's confessional standards were a greater danger than liberal ministers themselves. For by tolerating liberals while continuing to be faithful to the Westminster Confession, conservatives were helping to obscure the true state of the church” (ibid.).

The above “principle served as the basis for Machen's decision in 1936 to form the OPC” (ibid.). Holding to this principle was costly for Machen lost the support of other conservatives. One typical example was the case of Clarence Macartney. D. G. Hart elaborates further the details of this case: 

“One such case was that of Clarence Macartney, minister of Arch Street Church in Philadelphia and later at First Church in Pittsburgh. Machen and Macartney had labored  together  to  oppose Harry Emerson Fosdick in the mid-1920s, to preserve Princeton Seminary as a bastion of Calvinism, and failing that, to perpetuate Princeton's ideals  at Westminster Seminary. But when in  1933 Machen founded the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, a rival to the mainline denomination's own agency which Machen believed had succumbed to liberalism, Macartney began to distance himself from the conservative movement. Eventually Machen was brought to trial and suspended from the Presbyterian ministry in  1936 for refusing to sever his ties  to the Independent Board. Macartney, on the other hand, while opposed to liberalism, did not think the rival missions board was a proper method for promoting the conservative cause and so remained in the mainline Presbyterian Church for the rest of his career” (p. 316).

And so Machen was expelled from the Presbyterian ministry in 1936. In the mind of Machen, such decision “was a clear sign that the denomination had become apostate, that its corporate witness was no longer faithful to the Westminster Standards and that there was no hope of reforming the church” (ibid.).

-o-o-o-

Relationship Between Church and Culture

With the formation of National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942, something important happened that “had implications  not only for the  OPC's relations with conservatives still working in mainline denominations but also for cooperation with evangelicals in non-Presbyterian communions” (p. 317). The goal of NAE was to “promote evangelism more effectively and restore a Christian voice within American society” (ibid.). However, “the OPC decided not to join the NAE” due to the commitment of the denomination to preserve “its corporate witness” (ibid.). The NAE though composed of evangelical and “opposed to modernism,” the association “accepted ministers and congregations from mainline denominations that had not repudiated liberalism” (ibid.). For OPC, joining the NAE would put their existence into question. And not only that, the NAE also accepted Arminian ministers. The OPC is worried that becoming a member of NAE would violate “their ordination vows by participating in evangelistic campaigns with those who did not share their theological commitments” (ibid.).

Fidelity to historic Protestant teachings of the church removed OPC  “from the more visible aspects of the post-World War II evangelical resurgence” (ibid.). “Many evangelicals interpreted the OPC's isolationist stance as one further example of fundamentalist separatism” (ibid.). J. Gresham Machen received a very negative reputation as a result. “Edward J. Carnell, a prominent evangelical theologian and president of Fuller Theological Seminary in  the  late  1950s declared that Machen had exhibited fundamentalism's worst feature, a cultic mentality” (ibid.). According to Carnell, Machen “had taken ' “an absolute stand on a relative issue” ' and was thereby unable to see how his ' “subjective criteria” ' for Christian fellowship had planted the seeds of anarchy among conservatives” (ibid.). For D. G. Hart, if greater unity was the true need of that time to promote mission, “then  Machen's loyalty  to  Presbyterian polity and doctrinal standards was” really “ excessive and” has “threatened evangelical cooperation” (ibid.). D.G. Hart observes that both Carnell and many evangelical leaders of that period failed to see that in the eyes of “Machen and the OPC,” they interpreted mission as inseparably “rooted  in  the  historic Protestant conception of the church” (p. 318). With the reformers, they consider the marks of a true church as indispensable. For OPC, the NAE was pursuing mission “outside the means that Christ had appointed” (ibid.). For OPC, the real “issue was not separatism but discipline and integrity” (ibid.). OPC’s separatist’s stance could be interpreted as one of “narrow-mindeness” and “self-righteousness,” but for these orthodox ministers, their concept of the corporate witness of the church prevented them from joining NAE for such action “would undermine their commitment to uphold and preserve Presbyterian polity and theology” (ibid.). And so the contrast between NAE and OPC is that while the former minimized “doctrinal and ecclesiastical differences in order to further evangelism,” the latter “made the doctrine of the church central to its ecumenical considerations” (ibid.).

Machen played a significant role in maintaining that firm grasp of the orthodox perspective of the church. Grounded in Reformed tradition, such understanding of the church was an obstacle to OPC’s greater cultural engagement. Such emphasis on the corporate testimony “of the church prevented the OPC from joining the  NAE, an organization that  served to  make evangelical Christianity more prominent and influential in public debates and cultural life” (ibid.). The outcome is that “evangelicals, who have paid less heed to ecclesiastical regularity, have been actively attempting to transform the culture, while Reformed believers like Orthodox Presbyterians, who have often been scrupulous in their adherence to Presbyterian polity and Calvinist theology, have had little influence outside their denomination” (ibid.). Though Machen upholds a comprehensive Christian engagement in culture, it appears that his distinct view of the church is contrary to the realization of such vision. “Reformed believers,” says D. G Hart “may have to concede that evangelicalism, with its populist and pragmatic orientation, is better adapted for success in modern society than Presbyterianism, with its formal and procedural character”        (p. 319).  He adds, that “Presbyterians may be forced to compromise their theological and ecclesiastical traditions if they are to be more effective and influential” (ibid.). He states that “the recent history of Reformed and Presbyterian denominations compared to that of evangelical para church organizations does suggest that the structure and discipline of the visible church are ill- suited for the transformation of culture” (ibid.).

-o-o-o-

Modern Predicament

Nevertheless, D. G. Hart thinks that though the Presbyterians’ concept of the church and their theological distinctives “may not be as effective  as evangelical pragmatism,” they don’t need to “choose between either a Reformed understanding of the institutional church or the Reformed idea of transforming culture” (ibid.). Hart suggests that instead of copying the evangelicals in their “church growth strategies or political lobbying” to implement social transformation, Reformed believers have to come up with their own unique interpretation of cultural transformation. For Hart, this is where Machen’s insights are helpful particularly the latter’s idea “on the relationship of church and culture” (ibid.). Hart claims that Machen “drew upon and represented a tradition of Reformed thought in America that offers an alternative, if not a corrective, to the current evangelical quest for cultural prominence” (ibid.).

To achieve cultural prominence, evangelicals in America had been politicized. Hence the division between the evangelical left and the evangelical right. D. G. Hart describes that “after decades of political inactivity,” the “evangelicals have returned to public debate with a vengeance” (pp. 319-320). Both wings looked back “to American Protestant social reforms of the pre-Civil War era as a precedent for political involvement” (p. 320). Hart describes both camps:

“For the left this period reveals a  pattern of evangelical political activity that championed the cause of black slaves, women, the poor, the illiterate and the oppressed. For the right the evangelical crusades of the antebellum era show the positive results of a nation where Christianity was the  dominant  social  force. Interestingly enough, both parties offer rationales that appear to be compatible with a Reformed outlook. Evangelicals correctly point out that Christ's lordship extends to all areas of life, including the public square, and that the Christian idea of salvation involves not just the individual soul but all aspects of what it means to be human. This is the reason why evangelicals often speak about the need to go beyond fundamentalism and its narrow conception of Christianity” (ibid.).

Hart further narrates:

“When modern evangelicals have looked to the American past for examples of political involvement, moreover, they often follow the example of believers who worked in the Reformed tradition. The evangelicals who actively engaged in the crusades of the early nineteenth century were heirs to the New England Puritan tradition that stressed the involvement of the church and the Christian magistrate in remedying moral and social ills. Indeed, the Puritan conception of the godly commonwealth has been a major source of the Christian nationalism that has regularly surfaced among white Protestants throughout the United State's history” (ibid.).

The foregoing was the rough description of the attitude of Northern evangelicals towards politics. In contrast to such attitude, Machen coming from the Southern Presbyterian tradition, maintained “the doctrine of the spirituality of the church” (p. 321). “According to this doctrine, the church's functions and tasks are strictly spiritual” (ibid.). From the responsibilities of the church such as the preaching of the gospel, administering the sacraments, and nurturing believers, Machen argues that “the church as an institution has no means for, nor does its ministry involve, intervening in cultural or social affairs. In other words, the church's power and weapons are spiritual, not corporal” (ibid.). Machen found the basis of this view from “chapter thirty-one, article four of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which reads,  ' “Synods  and councils are to  handle or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical; and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth” ' (ibid.). However, for Machen “this principle does not mean that individual Christians cannot be involved in cultural and political life,” but rather this rule “taught that the church in its  corporate capacity, whether at the  denominational or congregational level,  should not stray from its proper task of witnessing to Christ” (ibid.).

Hart further elaborates the cultural and social implications of Machen’s concept of the spiritual character of the function of the church:

“The idea  of distinguishing between spiritual and temporal  affairs obviously comports well with notions about the separation of church and state which the eighteenth-century revolutions in France and the United States forged. Moreover, the legal implications of the separation of civil and ecclesiastical powers are fully evident in Machen's constitutional conception of the church. Just as the Constitution of the United States obligates the American government to  certain principles about freedom  and representative  democracy, so, Machen argued, the  constitution of the  Presbyterian Church commits its members to a particular system of theology, church polity and a specific spiritual task” (pp. 321-322).

“Just as the spirituality of the church has important implications for Machen's understanding of the church, it was also significant in shaping his attitudes about society. What is especially interesting to note is how his ideas about the church were bound up with a strong endorsement of religious freedom and cultural pluralism. Rather than conceiving of the state as a means for implementing and enforcing Christian norms and values, as many in the Puritan tradition have, Machen thought that the state's chief business was to protect individuals, families and other private associations from government interference” (p. 322).

And then Hart further explains the volitional aspect of both the state and the church. In the mind of Machen, “the state is an ' “involuntary organization; a man is  forced to be a member of it  whether he will or no.” ' It was, therefore, ' “an interference with liberty for the state to prescribe any one type of opinion” ' for its  citizens” (ibid.). For Machen, this insight has implications to limit the power of civil government. The regulation of private schools and the setting of “number of hours that children could work” are “matters for parents to decide” (ibid) and they are not within the sphere of  government authority. “Machen believed that the state should not paternalistically require all families to conform to one standard. Thus, Machen rejected the Constantinian paradigm of church-state relations which had dominated Christianity, whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant since the fourth century” (ibid.).

For Machen, civil liberties and religious freedom are closely related. He was convinced that the kind of perceived intolerance the OPC practiced “was not only compatible with but predicated upon civil liberty” (ibid.). Machen explained that “within the involuntary association of the state,” “ ‘individual citizens who desire to unite for some special purpose should be permitted to do so. Especially in the sphere of religion, such permission of individuals to unite is one of the rights which lie at the very foundation of our civil and religious liberty. The state does not scrutinize the rightness or wrongness of the religious purpose for which such voluntary religious associations are formed-if it did undertake such scrutiny all religious liberty would be gone’” (ibid.).

Based on the above perspective, Hart further explains Machen’s stance:

“the church was one type of voluntary organization. It was composed of ‘“a number of persons who have come to agreement in a certain message about Christ and who desire to unite in the propagation of that message.”' Because no one was forced by legal means to join the church, the principle of religious liberty was not violated by requiring ministers and church official to assent to certain theological views. Machen applied this logic to the family and the school, two institutions that he thought were fundamental to nurturing Christian faith. Indeed, he thought civil liberties were so important for preserving a Christian witness that he defended the rights of non-Christians to found schools and rear children in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Religious liberty, he maintained, should be extended not just to Protestants, but to all religions. Once the state had the power to decide which religions (or even opinions) were acceptable then it could also outlaw Christianity” (pp. 322-323).

Such implication on the limitation of the power of civil government on matters of religious freedom also implies that religious institutions “could not interfere  in  public matters” (p. 323). Machen demonstrated this conviction in at least two cases, the abolition of the sale of and consumption of alcohol and the imposition of Bible reading and prayer in public school. Machen voted no in both cases. For him, “by involving itself in such political matters he thought the church was losing sight of its proper function which was to proclaim the gospel” (ibid.). Moreover, in his mind, the imposition of Bible reading and prayer “violated the liberties of non-Christians” (ibid.). Such stance is contrary to the position of “many evangelicals and fundamentalists who look to government to preserve Christian influence” (ibid.). Furthermore, in the eyes of Machen, such interference in public matters “compromised the message of the gospel” (ibid.). The goal behind the imposition of Bible reading and prayer, which is to establish “common notions about good and evil” is contrary to redemption, the central teaching of the Bible. This is “to create the impression that other things in the Bible contain any hope for humanity apart from [grace]” (ibid.). 

However, this does “not mean that schools should not enforce some kind of morality” (ibid.). For Machen, the thing to be avoided is the effort “to ground that morality upon the Bible” (ibid.). Mecahen accepted that “a secular moral education,” “was by no means sufficient because ' “the  only true grounding of morality is  found  in  the  revealed  will of God” ' (pp. 323-324). Machen saw secular education as a “necessary evil” (p. 324). For him, accepting such kind of education “avoided the greater harm of confusing the Bible's central teaching” (ibid.). The specific “harm that religious activity in public affairs could produce was to remove Christian understandings of virtue and morality from first order considerations about human depravity and grace” (ibid.). But at the same time, “by taking religion out of the public sphere” and by “protecting civil liberty,” Christians could at least have “the opportunity to  establish churches and organizations for  the promotion of their own beliefs and values without the oversight of the state” Ibid.). Consequently, such “separation of church and state removed large areas of culture from formal Christian influence” (ibid.). Overall, “Machen's thought  is  an important reminder that the notion of transforming culture does not occur in a vacuum, and even more, that it involves implicitly the involvement of religion in politics to a degree at odds with modern notions of liberty and pluralism” (ibid.). Contrary to both modernists and fundamentalists of his day who “wanted to preserve Christian civilization in the United States and were willing to use the state to do so, Machen perceived the dangers of such a strategy. For him these dangers were as harmful to the church and its mission as they were to the civil liberties of citizens and communities” (ibid.).  

-o-o-o-

The Responsibility of the Church in our Time

Concluding his article, D. G. Hart summed up “some words of advice from Machen about the” responsibility of the church in our time:

First, Machen’s “emphasis on the corporate witness of the church led him to distinguish” “between the church's and the individual believer's duties” (ibid.). In one gathering of social scientists, instead of emphasizing the church’s positive tasks, he clarified with them what they “should not expect from the church” (ibid.). However, those qualities of the church considered as “ ‘radically doctrinal,’ 'radically intolerant,' and 'radically ethical'” (ibid.) are actually related to the witnessing task of the church. The interesting insight is the way Machen confines the influence of the church. He did it in two ways: One, it is wrong to see the church cooperating “ ‘with non-Christian religion or with a non-Christian program of ethical culture’ for in Machen’s mind ‘there is no such thing as a universally valid fund of religious principles upon which particular religions, including the Christian religion, may build' ” (p. 325). Two, it was also inappropriate to expect the church to give “ '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' because the church's weapons against evil 'are spiritual, not carnal ' ” (ibid.). So for Machen, the responsibility of the church in our time is “ ‘the same as its responsibility in every age' ” (ibid.):

“ ‘It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life-nay the length of human history-is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is 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 whosoever 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 earth’ ” (ibid.).

Second, such witnessing task does “not exempt individual Christians from transforming or consecrating culture” (ibid.). Machen acknowledged the important role of “families, schools and colleges, and communities play in nurturing and sustaining Christian fellowship and witness. For him, “these institutions  and associations along with the  church provide believers with a sense of community and a culture of a distinctly Christian variety” (ibid.). In this culture, not every component “would be explicitly Christian because through common grace believers share much with unbelievers” (ibid.). For Hart, “Machen’s ideas about Christian schools are instructive” “because they were grounded in this vision of Christian culture. Hart narrates:

“It is this profound Christian permeation of every human activity, no matter how secular the world may regard it  as being, which is brought about by the Christian school ... A Christian boy or girl can learn mathematics, for  example from a  teacher who is  not a Christian; and truth is truth however learned. But ... the bearing of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian” (p. 326).

Hart recognizes that the above concept “of Christian culture cannot be applied to a society dedicated to civil liberty and comprised of citizens of different religious traditions” ibid.). This is instructive especially in the light of the history of the United States where the diverse ethnic, religious and political cultures were forced by Protestants of British descent “into a mold compatible with their own beliefs and values, usually through political but also through evangelistic means” (ibid.). Machen disagreed against such an approach. For him, “rather than resisting cultural pluralism in the hope of building a national Christian culture,” he “encouraged a full-fledged pluralism in which Christians established their own Christian enclaves” (ibid.). Machen “was not concerned with whether these  local expressions of Christian culture would return America to its so-called Christian past or put Christians in political office” (ibid.). For him, “the purpose of such ghettos dominated by the family, church, and school was to train generations of believers who would take a Christian understanding of culture into all walks of life and who would recognize the importance of the church, the family and schools for sustaining Christian culture” (ibid.).

For modern critics of Machen, his ideas about Christianity and culture are considered anomalous. However, such ideas were grounded in his “convictions about the integrity of the church while they also accommodated social and political realities” (ibid.). Machen’s interpretation “of cultural transformation was not premised upon cultural uniformity or Protestant triumphalism” (ibid.). Many today would disagree with the details of Machen’s perspective. But for Hart, Machen’s ideas could serve both as a reminder and a warning against those who carry the banner of Christianity in their pursuit of cultural transformation, and yet “may obscure the  weighty matters of the gospel and the church's duty to proclaim it” (ibid.).

-o-o-o-

Source: J. Gresham Machen, the Reformed Tradition and the Transformation of Culture

Guide Questions:

1.      What are the five sub-topics discussed by D. G. Hart in his article that explains the connection between the Reformed tradition and the transformation of culture? Briefly explain each.

2.      What is the difference between Machen’s vision of cultural transformation from that of neo-evangelicalism and H. Richard Niebuhr?

3.      After the death of Machen, what are the two groups that claim to follow in his footsteps? And in what way they are different from each other in their approach to cultural transformation?

4.      Why is the delayed response of the Reformed community to the task of cultural transformation difficult to understand?

5.      What are the two distinctives of Reformed tradition that provide the basis for cultural transformation?

6.      According to D. G. Hart, what is possibly the reason for such a delayed response?

7.      How is Machen’s vision of cultural transformation different from H. Richard Niebuhr? What will be the practical implications of Machen’s vision?

8.      What are the first two themes in Machen’s vision of cultural transformation?

9.      Is it accurate to say that Machen’s vision advocate both active cultural engagement and withdrawal? In what sense each of them should be properly understood?

10.  Despite strong criticism of liberalism, how was the attitude of Machen towards liberal Protestants? In what way the doctrine of common grace informed his attitude?

11.  Give examples of Machen’s political engagement.

12.  Briefly define the meaning of “consecration of culture”.

13.  For Machen, what is the primary task of the church?

14.  Why is theology important in fulfilling such task?

15.  What does theological fidelity mean in concrete terms?

16.  In what way liberal ministers violate their ordination vows?

17.  What costs Machen for standing firm on the principle of the separateness of the church?

18.  What is the major difference between the stance of the OPC from that of the NAE?

19.  How did Edward J. Carnell assess Machen? What was his basis for such an assessment?

20.  What was the real issue that time in the eyes of the OPC?

21.  Do you think that is it right to set aside church polity and doctrinal fidelity in order to accomplish social change? 

22.  Instead of copying the church growth strategies and political lobbying of the evangelicals, what do the Reformed believers have to do to achieve cultural transformation?

23.  What specific doctrine of the Church that caused Machen to differ from stance of the politicized evangelicals? Elaborate further.

24.  How did Machen distinguish the character of both the state and the church in relation to human volition? What social implications can we glean from such distinction?

25.  How did Machen demonstrate his conviction on the non-interference of the church in public matters?

26.  For Machen, what are his reasons for disagreeing with the alcohol prohibition and the imposition of Bible reading and prayer in public schools?

27.  How do you understand the idea that secular education is a necessary evil? What greater evil can be avoided in accepting such idea of secular education?

28.  Give one advantage that will result in taking religion out of the public sphere.

29.  What are the two primary insights we can glean from D. G. Hart’s article that will help us understand the relationship between church and society?

30.  How should we interpret the uncompromising and radical teaching of the church?

31.  In Machen’s view, what does it tell about the character of the church if the society expects her to give pronouncements related to public affairs?

32.  Based on the history of the United States, how did Christians respond to cultural diversity? What was Machen’s alternative?