Christianity & Liberalism: A Comparative Review
Directions of the Story
Machen wrote Christianity & Liberalism because he believed the essence of Christian faith was under attack, not only in the halls of academia but in the ‘every Sunday’ experience of laypersons living in every state of the nation. He believed they were being deceived by the liberal teaching of Christianity as a way of life founded on the premise of modernism. He heatedly objects to this teaching, imploring that Christianity is indeed a way of life, but it is a way of life that is founded upon doctrine (Machen, 19). Doctrine, he explained, was that “The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with the event went the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine (Machen, 25).”
For example, Paul’s life was founded upon a doctrine that he passionately defended while preaching throughout Asia and Rome, and so Machen compares his own disagreement with liberal theologians with the disagreement Paul had with the Judaizers in Galatia. Paul was teaching, 1) believe in Christ, 2) be justified before God, and then 3) proceed to keep God’s law. The Judaizers were teaching, 1) believe in Christ, 2) keep the law the best you can, 3) be justified. It is easy to discern that these two belief systems are radically different, so much so that Paul refuted their premise and said outright that these Judaizers were not Christians (Machen, 21).
Machen admits that some Christian doctrines may vary due to differences in scriptural interpretation, but he believed that a difference as stark as what Paul discovered in the teachings of the Judaizers is what exists between liberal theologians and Christianity. So much so, he asserts that what the liberal theologians are professing is not Christianity. Yet, when I read Rauschenbusch, one of his liberal contemporaries at the time, I was unable to discern his concern with Rauschenbusch’s theology.
Was Rauschenbusch one of the modern liberal theologians Machen was speaking so vehemently against? If so, I do not believe Machen was paying close attention to what theologians like Rauschenbusch were actually saying. In fact, most of Machen’s assertions about what liberal theologians were saying or thinking are not cited. Using faux quotations, he put words in their mouths that were not true. Therefore, the remainder of this essay compares what Machen declared was the confession of liberal modernists and what Walter Rauschenbusch actually said about God and Man, the Bible, Christ, Salvation, and the Church.
In chapter two, God and Man, Machen argues that modern liberalism holds a faulty knowledge of both God and man. Of God, because liberals say they need only have a conception of God. Not of theology. Not of knowledge. In fact, liberals say that is the death of religion. One only need to be aware of God’s presence as we become acquainted with Jesus (Machen, 48). Of man because reckless liberals ignore man’s sin. They are calling, unsuccessfully, the righteous to repentance (Machen, 59-60).
Not true. Rauschenbusch proposes a theology of a social gospel based on the Kingdom of God (Griffith, 312-315), positing that the Kingdom of God cannot be known except by the knowledge of God and that the knowledge of God reveals the Kingdom (Griffith, 313). As for sin, Rauschenbusch speaks plainly. Throughout his writings, he speaks of the kingdom of evil and its influence over man, and that when men succumb to its influences, they sin—greatly. They form families, communities, and even nations in cooperation with the kingdom of evil, bringing sin upon sin.
In chapter three, The Bible, Machen accuses the liberals of scoffing at the bible and its origins. He quotes them as saying things like, “Must we, it is said, depend on what happened so long ago?” and “Does salvation wait upon the examination of musty record? (Machen, 62)”
Also, not true. Rauschenbusch relied heavily on scripture, and especially on the old testament, to argue for the cause for a social gospel. “Thus a study of the prophets is not only an interesting part in the history of social movements but it is indispensable for any full comprehension of the social influence exerted by historical Christianity, and for any true comprehension of the mind of Jesus Christ (Landis, 7).”
Machen, in chapter four, Christ, gets to the heart of the matter—who is Jesus? “According to modern liberalism,” Machen writes, “Jesus was the Founder of Christianity because He was the first Christian, and Christianity consists in maintenance of the religious life which Jesus instituted (Machen, 76).” In this, he charges liberals with a heresy similar to those that had been refuted in the formulation of the Nicene Creeds. Liberals, Machen says, do not believe in a High Christology, i.e., the divine nature of Christ. They say that Jesus was only human, a first born among us who, late in his life, took on the Messianic responsibly to judge the world and lead other humans to God. He is only to be regarded as an Example and Guide (Machen, 85). If this were true, it would be reason enough to declare liberal modernism as anti-Christian.
But Rauschenbusch’s Christology is complex. He does see Jesus as the initiator of the Kingdom of God. He asserts “Theology has been on a false trail in seeking the key to his (Jesus’) life in the difficult doctrine of the two natures (Griffith, 316),” which certainly sounds heretical, but he continues. “That doctrine has never been settled. The formula of Chalcedon was a compromise (Griffith, 316).” Having studied the history of Chalcedon, I know that what he says is true, but does he go as far as to say Jesus is not divine? No. He is more concerned with Jesus’ character than his nature but does not deny Jesus’ deity. “His divinity was an inheritance or endowment which he brought with him and which was fixed for him in his pre-existent state (Griffith, 316).”
In chapter five, Salvation, Machen presents three liberal theories of atonement, yet all of them, he says, lack the vital recognition of a substitutionary atonement, “— that Christ died instead of us to present us faultless before the throne of God (Machen, 107).” They all rely on the human will to obtain salvation instead of relying on God. This chapter also hints at the reason Machen’s opinion on this particular matter was so tainted. In a citation to Fosdick, a snippet of an interview recorded by Margaret Renton, “Shall the Fundamentalists, Win?” Machen found a scornful liberal reproach, “that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity an makes possible welcome for the returning sinner. (Machen, 108)”
Even among traditional doctrines there exist differences in opinion over how atonement works. Some, like Machen, say that the atonement is a substitutionary work. Others have claimed it is an atonement of satisfaction. Rauschenbusch is not scornful, yet he does not mention the significance Christ’s blood in his discourse on atonement (Griffith, 316-318). He offers a different interpretation based on the mystery of the Kingdom of God. He sees Christ’s death as a catalyst for changing the way humans think and feel, by demonstrating the power of human sin, revealing the love of God, and reinforcing prophetic religion. But this atonement is not accomplished by the will of man, but by the will of God. “The church has the power to save in so far as the Kingdom of God is present in it (Griffith, 314).”
In chapter six, The Church, Machen accuses liberals of including all of mankind into the brotherhood, regardless of their race or creed. But the brotherhood, i.e., the Church, Machen says, needs to be limited to the redeemed as defined by the Presbyterian Church. Yet it is not a closed order. It is open to all who wish to participate (Machen, 142).
To Rauschenbusch, the miracle of the Church is comparable to a super-personal being, i.e., an amalgamation of the many bodies and minds organized around Jesus Christ, “for its sole purpose to embody his spirit in its life and to carry him into human thought and the conduct of affairs (Griffith, 312).”
In conclusion, I need to say that I appreciate and agree with much of Machen’s theology, but as I read the Rauschenbusch texts, highlighting almost every line, I was made aware of his deep love for Christ and the Kingdom of God. That is why I was so taken aback by Machen’s accusations. I cannot say that all modern liberal theologians shared Rauschenbusch’s opinions, some may have definitely gone off the rails, but Machen did not do thorough research. He was just as narrow as the liberals he accused. “But the narrow man is the man who rejects the other man’s convictions without first endeavoring to understand them, the man who makes no effort to look at things from the other man’s point of view (Machen, 144).” He grouped all of modern liberalism into a monolith and as an unfortunate result, put words in Rauschenbusch’s mouth that were not true.
I am sure many, or most, of the multitudes who read Machen’s book over the years were deterred from exploring Rauschenbusch or taking him seriously, which is a shame because Rauschenbusch’s social gospel is truly inspirational. It makes me wonder if it had any influence on American politics in the decades following their publication in the early 1900s.
In the 1930s and 40s, American politics made a dramatic pivot, creating legislation that benefited the greater good of all Americans and not just the wealthy few—a hypothesis that is worth looking into.
Bibliography
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, originally published November 30, 1922.
Benson Y. Landis, A Rauschenbusch Reader: The Kingdom of God and the Social Gospel, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1957.
R. Marie Griffith, American Religions: A Documentary History, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.