If you haven’t heard, 2023 marks the centennial of the publication of J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, a book that George Marsden described as “one of the most important religious works of the twentieth century,” and one that is dear to the heart of our seminary. Through our publishing arm, Westminster Seminary Press, we’re celebrating this milestone with a new edition of Machen’s seminal treatise, a companion podcast series, a new audiobook recording, and a study guide. But there is always more to the story of Christianity and Liberalism that we can tell. That’s because its story continues to grow each year! Throughout the century of its existence, Machen’s book has remained in print through multiple editions and publishers. And it continues to be translated into increasingly more languages around the globe each year. Without a doubt, this is a special book, the significance of which is well worth exploring.
A Brief History
When Machen’s critique of liberal protestant theology appeared in 1923, it launched him on a tempestuous journey that carried the then Princeton Seminary professor to international prominence. Machen’s decisive popular preaching and trenchant scholarly publications manifested his deep theological commitment to confessional Presbyterianism, and he became the leading scholarly voice of biblical Christianity in its confrontation with the liberalizing theology of Presbyterianism and other mainline protestant denominations. After the reorganization of Princeton Seminary in 1929, which solidified that institution’s embrace of theological Liberalism, Machen’s historic Reformed theological commitments providentially led to the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. And the ongoing ecclesiastical controversies in Presbyterianism eventually compelled him in 1936 to organize a new denomination that became the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. After Machen’s death on January 1, 1937, Princetonian Caspar Wistar Hodge described him as, “the greatest theologian in the English-speaking world” and “the greatest leader of the whole cause of evangelical Christianity” (Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir, 7).
Machen’s pivotal role in the defense of historic Christianity continues to be recognized today. The accomplished endorsers of Westminster Seminary Press’s new edition of Christianity and Liberalism confer remarkable accolades upon the author and his historic book (p. i–vii.). They speak of Machen’s “courage,” his “important” work, and “classic defense” of historic Christianity. They note that Machen’s “prescience” was adorned by “precision,” “logic,” and “clarity” that characterized his “prophetic” message. Indeed, this “little book,” as Machen described it (9), is assessed by one en-dorser as “prescient in its time and … even more relevant in ours.”
So, it stands to reason that Machen’s view of Liberalism is worth exploring, along with the vital significance of his distinction between theological Liberalism and Christianity proper. I believe that more than a little precious insight can be gained by taking a closer look at Machen’s articulation of “stupendous” aspects of supernatural Christianity.
Liberalism’s Naturalism Is Inherently Opposed to Biblical Christianity
Machen argued that although Christianity and Liberalism used the same terms, they were, in fact, two different religions. He explains,
In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive reli-gion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism’ or ‘liberalism’ . . . the root of the movement is one; the many varieties of modern liberal religion are rooted in natural-ism—that is, in the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God . . . in connection with the origin of Christianity (2).
The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberal-ism.’ An examination of the teachings of liberalism in comparison with those of Christianity will show that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition (53).
For Machen then, Christianity is the revealed religion of the Lord Jesus Christ while the Christianity of liberal theology was a reduction of the former into a sort of pre-Christian religion resulting from Liberalism’s efforts to reconcile Christianity with naturalistic philosophy and science (see p. 7).
In fact, Machen argues that there is no ultimate conflict between historic Christianity and science itself so long as Christians maintain a proper understanding of God’s role in creation and providence (102–103). Ironically, it is liberal theology that is at odds with science: “. . . it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding off the assaults of modern unbelief” (7)
The real motive behind modern Liberalism, Machen argued, was to accommodate religion to those who had rejected the supernaturalism of biblical Christianity in favor of the naturalistic tenets of unbelieving science. But the result was not Christianity; it was a new man-made religion marked by deistic or pantheistic perspectives emanating from enlightenment era philosophy (102–105). “Naturalistic liberalism,” Machen insists, “is not Christianity at all” (52).
Naturalistic liberal religion, according to Machen, begins its method of resistance to historic Christianity by rejecting the importance of the church’s creeds and doctrines. When it comes to doctrine, the liberal sees creeds as “merely the changing expression of a unitary Christian experience and provided only they express that experience they are all equally good” (18).
“At the outset,” Machen explains, “we are met with an objection. ‘Teachings,’ it is said, ‘are unimportant; the exposition of the teachings of liberalism and the teachings of Christianity, therefore, can arouse no interest at the present day; . . . The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as far removed as possible from the teachings of historic Christianity; and yet the two might be at bottom one” (18).
But, as Machen points out, “If all creeds are equally true, then since they are contradictory to one another, they are all equally false, or at least equally uncertain. . . . Very different is the Christian conception of a creed. According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience; on the contrary, it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based” (19).
This leads to Machen’s perspective that what is really at the heart of the disagreement between Christianity and modern liberal naturalistic theology is their differing attitude toward the supernatural.
Naturalistic Liberalism Rejects Christianity’s Supernaturalism
It is indicative that much of Machen’s burden to expose the profound differences between the two religions of Christianity and Liberalism rests on repeatedly contrasting the supernatural character of historic biblical Christianity with the liberal’s rejection of anything suggesting the supernatural. He insists that “supernaturalism . . . is the very thing that the modern reconstruction of Christianity is most anxious to avoid” (91). “. . . Christians . . . have accepted as true the message upon which Christianity depends. A great gulf separates them from those who reject the supernatural act of God with which Christianity stands or falls” (77). “That belief [in the resurrection of Jesus] involves the acceptance of the supernatural; and the acceptance of the supernatural is thus the very heart and soul of the religion that we possess” (112). Similarly for Machen, the new birth experienced by the Christian as depicted in Galatians 2:20 reflects “the supernaturalism of Christian experience” (143).
The liberal’s rejection of the supernatural is so decisively non-Christian, Machen argues, that the Jesus of liberal Christianity is no longer supernatural. “. . . liberalism regards Jesus as the fairest flower of humanity; Christianity regards Him as a supernatural person” (97). “. . . the Jesus presented in the New Testament was a supernatural Person. Yet for modern liberalism a supernatural person is never historical. . . . He is supernatural, and yet what is supernatural, on the liberal hypothesis, can never be historical. The problem could be solved only by the separation of the natural from the supernatural in the New Testament account of Jesus in order that what is supernatural might be rejected and what is natural might be retained” (110).
Naturalistic Liberalism Rejects Doctrine That Flows from Supernaturalism
What is true for the liberal’s view of Christ—the rejection of his supernatural character—is true also for the liberal’s view of doctrine. Liberalism’s rejection of the supernatural inevitably shapes how they view God and man, the Bible, salvation, and the church as there is an intrinsic logic that controls naturalistic liberalism as a system of thought (177).
Accordingly, the liberal claims, “theology, or the knowledge of God, . . . is the death of religion; we should not seek to know God, but should merely feel His presence” (55). Against bare pantheistic religious experience (64), however, “. . . Christianity is the belief in the real existence of a personal God” (59). This stands in stark contrast to the liberal’s vague claim of “the universal fatherhood of God.” Moreover, “the universal fatherhood of God is not to be found in the teaching of Jesus” (61). Rather, “The God whom the Christian worships is a God of truth” (77). “Rational theism, the knowledge of one Supreme Person, Maker and active Ruler of the world, is at the very root of Christianity” (57).
And, in terms of man, the liberal has reappropriated the pagan understanding of human nature. “. . . a remarkable change has come about within the last seventy-five years,” Machen writes. “The change is nothing less than the substitution of paganism for Christianity as the dominant view of life. . . . What then is paganism? . . . Paganism is that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties. Very different is the Christian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature, whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart” (66). “According to the Bible, man is a sinner under the condemnation of God; according to modern liberalism, there is really no such thing as sin. At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin. . . . Characteristic of the modern age, above all else, is a supreme confidence in human goodness” (65). How different, though, is Christianity: “The truly penitent man glories in the supernatural, for he knows that nothing natural would meet his need; the world has been shaken once in his downfall, and shaken again it must be if he is to be saved” (109).
Given Liberalism’s merely human Jesus, its nebulous pantheistic God who can only be felt as though a Father and yet not known personally, along with its pagan ideal of human goodness that knows no sin, what, then, becomes of the Bible?
Historic Christianity affirms the inspiration of the Bible which Machen explains as plenary inspiration. “. . . the doctrine of plenary inspiration does not deny the individuality of the biblical writers; . . . What it does deny is the presence of error in the Bible. . . . according to the doctrine of inspiration the account is as a matter of fact a true account; the Bible is an ‘infallible rule of faith and practice.’ Certainty that is a stupendous claim, and it is no wonder that it has been attacked” (76). “The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration, but even such respect for the Bible as would be proper over against any ordinarily trustworthy book” (78). “The liberal scholar. . . must finally admit that even the ‘historical’ Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians said some things that are untrue.” (79) Thus the two religions of Christianity and Liberalism are clearly distinguished by their different foundations for their faith, “Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men” (81).
Standing in stark contrast with the monochromatic naturalism of theological Liberalism, true Christianity celebrates an exultant supernaturalism in full color.
The sum of all this is that Christianity and Liberalism have two different views of salvation. “Liberalism finds salvation (so far as it is willing to speak at all of ‘salvation’) in man; Christianity finds it in an act of God” (121). “Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of the ‘atonement.’ But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross. . . . the essence . . . is that the death of Christ had an effect not upon God but only upon man. Sometimes the effect upon man is conceived of in a very simple way, Christ’s death being regarded merely as an example of self-sacrifice for us to emulate” (122). “It is perfectly true that the Christ of modern naturalistic reconstruction never could have suffered for the sins of others; but it is very different in the case of the Lord of Glory” (132).
Liberalism produced spiritual maladies which were profoundly detrimental to the church and to Christians.
The idea of a substitutionary or vicarious atonement of Christ for sinners whereby his sacrificial death and shed blood cleanses believers of sin before God is utterly unacceptable for the Liberal.
Upon the Christian doctrine of the Cross, modern liberals are never wary of pouring out the vials of their hatred and their scorn. . . . They speak with disgust of those who believe “that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death; placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner.” Against the doctrine of the Cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the Cross, they are trampling upon human hearts (124).
The Spiritual Maladies of Liberalism’s Counterfeit Christianity
Machen’s conclusion that Liberalism was a different religion from Christianity also led to the recognition that Liberalism produced spiritual maladies which were profoundly detrimental to the church and to Christians. “The greatest menace to the Christian Church to-day comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core” (164). “A terrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of those who reject the gospel of Christ. By the equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the interpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith” (182).
Machen minces no words as he describes the fruits of theological liberalism that had entered into the Church by dishonesty (166ff). He speaks of the errors of modern liberalism (73); its rejection of the truth of Jesus (78) and its hatred of the cross (123); its rejection of the whole basis of Christianity (47); its vituperation of the past as seen in its attack on Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster Divines (in which they actually attack the Bible and Jesus himself, not merely the 17th century) (45). The fruit of liberal theology and its false claims (19, 33, 36) are hopeless disillusionment (41), gloom, (42) and failure (43). As a return to paganism (66), its preaching is futile (69). In the process of giving up on Paul, they lose Jesus too (45). The result of Liberalism is a vague natural religion (63) that becomes a rival of Christianity (53).
Instead of having a doctrine that transforms hearts by good news that is historical in nature (46), Liberalism creates despair (38), as it leaves people in the cold humdrum of their own lives (41). The result is a brotherhood of beneficent vagueness (34) rather than a brotherhood of twice born sinners, a brotherhood of the redeemed (162). If at times liberals’ arguments seem plausible, they are in fact pitifully vain (39). Even when celebrated on stage or powerfully asserted, Liberalism simply portrays a spurious view of life (19, 41).
Tragically, Liberalism returns the church to medieval legalism (148, 182–183). Rather than advancing liberty, it creates spiritual slavery (148). Its expectations are powerless, because they emphasize the imperative that addresses the human will rather than the indicative that brings the truths and promises of God (47). It is not the human will that changes lives, but a story (48). And therefore, the stupendous supernaturalism of Christianity will not follow the liberals’ policy of palliation by diminishing Jesus’s messianic consciousness and his identity as the very God man in history (89).
Machen’s Stupendous Christian Supernaturalism
Standing in stark contrast with the monochromatic naturalism of theological Liberalism, true Christianity celebrates an exultant supernaturalism in full color (174). In Machen’s estimation, Christianity alone possesses the gospel that produces the warmth and joy of believers who have been transformed by the news that changed history and changes lives (136–137). This was, and is, Machen’s “stupendous” Christian supernaturalism. As a master wordsmith, Machen was ever conscious of the precision and meaning of his words, so it is significant that he used the term stupendous often to describe the verities of the Christian faith.
Derived from the Latin word stupeo, stupendous can be translated as stunned, benumbed, to be dazed, speechless, silenced, astounded, confounded, or aghast. When something is stupendous, it means that it is extremely impressive, causing astonishment or wonder. In Christianity and Liberalism, Machen used the word repeatedly and always in the context of the truths of historic Christianity but never in relationship with Liberalism. Machen thus emphasized the truths of the Christian faith by holding them forth as nothing less than supernatural in character and consequently extremely impressive. Indeed, for Machen, the truths of historic Christianity were stunningly true—especially when contrasted with the many pathologies of Liberalism that he perceived. Machen’s word choice is especially evident in various respects regarding Jesus: his messianic consciousness, his Person, his claims, his theology, and his mission. Each of these falls under Machen’s rubric of stupendous:
Jesus’s Person and Messianic Consciousness. “. . . the teaching of Jesus was rooted in doctrine. It was rooted in doctrine because it depended upon a stupendous presentation of Jesus’ own Person” (33). Jesus’s messianic consciousness led him to note that “the strange fact is that this supreme revealer of eternal truth supposed that He was to be the chief actor in a world catastrophe and was to sit in judgment upon the whole earth. Such is the stupendous form in which Jesus applied to Himself the category of Messiahship” (34).
Jesus’s Theology: “But even in the Sermon on the Mount there is far more than some men suppose. Men say that it contains no theology; in reality it contains theology of the most stupendous kind. In particular, it contains the loftiest possible presentation of Jesus’ own Person. That presentation appears in the strange note of authority which pervades the whole discourse” (36).
At its heart, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism is a book for the church.
Jesus’s Claims: “The sources know nothing of a Jesus who adopted the category of Messiahship late in life and against His will. On the contrary the only Jesus that they present is a Jesus who based the whole of His ministry upon His stupendous claim” (90).
Thus Jesus is the supreme example for men. But the Jesus who can serve as an example is not the Jesus of modern liberal reconstruction, but only the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of modern liberalism advanced stupendous claims which were not founded upon fact—such conduct ought never to be made a norm. The Jesus of modern liberalism all through His ministry employed language which was extravagant and absurd—and it is only to be hoped that imitation of Him will not lead to an equal extravagance in His modern disciples. If the Jesus of naturalistic reconstruction were really taken as an example, disaster would soon follow (97).
Jesus’s Mission: “The otherworldliness of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord himself with his stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press” (159).
And as it is the Bible that brings these stupendous realities of Christ to light, biblical revelation itself partakes of this stupendous character for Machen:
“The Bible might contain an account of a genuine revelation of God, and yet not contain a true account. But according to the doctrine of inspiration, the account is as a matter of fact a true account; the Bible is an ‘infallible rule of faith and practice.’ Certainly that is a stupendous claim and it is no wonder that it has been attacked” (76). “And Paul does not hesitate to apply to Jesus stupendous passages in the Greek Old Testament where the term Lord thus designates the God of Israel. But what is perhaps most significant of all for the establishment of the Pauline teaching about the Person of Christ is that Paul everywhere stands in a religious attitude toward Jesus. He who is thus the object of religious faith is surely no mere man, but a supernatural Person, and indeed a Person who was God” (100).
The stupendous realities of Christ contained in the stupendous truths of the Bible lead Machen to a stupendous passage that teaches a stupendous change in the life of a Christian.
Machen extols the supernatural gospel Christianity of Paul found in Galatians 2:20: “Many are the passages and many are the ways in which the central doctrine of the new birth is taught in the Word of God. One of the most stupendous passages is Gal. 2:20. . . . That passage was called by Bengel the marrow of Christianity. And it was rightly so called. It refers to the objective basis of Christianity in the redeeming work of Christ, and it contains also the supernaturalism of Christian experience” (143). “‘It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me’—these words involve a tremendous conception of the break that comes in a man’s life when he becomes a Christian. It is almost as though he became a new person—so stupendous is the change” (144).
Supernatural Christianity: The House of God and the Gate of Heaven
Machen’s consideration of stupendous Christian supernaturalism in relationship to Jesus, the Bible, and the new birth, enabled him to engage the Christian’s duties of evangelism and missions. It is such a thrilling message, that if Machen had written his little book in a previous era, when lengthy titles comprehensively proclaimed a book’s essential message, the title of Christianity and Liberalism might have been:
“How Stupendous Christian Supernaturalism with Its Joy of Salvation Rescues the Church from the Failed Modernist Attempt to Reconcile Historic Christianity with Naturalistic Science and Philosophy that Resulted in a Different Religion of So-Called Liberalism that Abandons the History, Person and Work of Christ Along with All Biblical Doctrine Turning the Joy of the Gospel into Despair.”
It was clear for Machen that Jesus’s mission was pursued in a busy world. And so, Christianity was not to retreat from the world and its turmoil: “The otherworldliness of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord himself with his stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press” (159). And thus, with Jesus and his worldly gospel mission in mind, we can appreciate Machen’s emphatic call for Christian global evangelization. The church has been given a vast responsibility to carry on the Lord’s mission, a conviction that goes far to explain Machen’s determination to establish a biblically based independent board of foreign missions, a commitment that would cost him dearly (See Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, 469–493).
But as the conclusion of Machen’s century-old best-seller again sounds its clarion call for the defense and advance of supernatural Christianity, it also unfurls afresh his yearning for a “refuge from strife”; a “place of refreshment where a man can prepare for the battle of life”; a “place where two or three can gather in Jesus’s name.” Machen summons fellow believers to the “foot of the cross” for there is to be found “the house of God” and “the gate of heaven” (184).
At its heart, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism is a book for the church, a book which equips her for defense by preserving biblical doctrine, and which equips her for mission by illuminating the powerful, hopeful, comforting message of Christ given for his people.
I thank God for J. Gresham Machen. He possessed, indeed, both the courage and the requisite scholarship to establish a theological legacy in defense of historic Christianity that remains vitally true a century after it first came off the press.