On Tolerance

There is a sense, of course, in which tolerance is a virtue.  If, by it, you mean tolerance on the part of the state, the forbearance of majorities toward minorities, the resolute rejection of any measures of physical compulsion in propagating either what is true or what is false then, of course, the Christian ought to favor tolerance with all his might and main and ought to lament the widespread growth of intolerance in America today.  Or, if you mean, by “tolerance,” forbearance toward personal attacks on yourself or courtesy and patience and fairness in dealing with all errors, of whatever kind then, again, tolerance is a virtue.  But, to pray for tolerance apart from such qualifications, in particular to pray for tolerance without careful definition of that of which you are to be tolerant, is just to pray for the breakdown of the Christian religion, for the Christian religion is intolerant to the core.

There lies the whole offense of the cross – and also the whole power of it.  Always, the gospel would have been received with favor by the world if it had been presented merely as one way of salvation.  The offense came because it was presented as the only way and because it made relentless war upon all other ways.  God save us, then, from this “tolerance” of which we hear so much.  God deliver us from the sin of making common cause with those who deny or ignore the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ.  God save us from the deadly guilt of consenting to the presence, as our representatives in the church, of those who lead Christ’s little ones astray.  God make us – whatever else we are – just faithful messengers who present, without fear or favor, not our word, but the Word of God. – J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), from The Good Fight of Faith

 

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Today is the 75th anniversary of the death of J. Gresham Machen.  Machen, who was a founder of Westminster Theological Seminary (1929) and of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936), died on January 1, 1937 – a full three-quarters of a century ago – of pneumonia, at 55, while on a preaching and speaking tour of North Dakota.  Two of his best-known books, New Testament Greek for Beginners and Christianity and Liberalism, were published in the same year, 1923.  To the best of my knowledge, neither book has ever been out of print.  In tribute to his life and ministry – especially his courageous battles again the theological liberalism of the first third of the last century, here is an excerpt from the latter volume:

Even if it were an attack not upon the Bible but only upon the great historic presentations of biblical teaching, it would still be unfortunate.  If the church were led to wipe out of existence all products of the thinking of nineteen Christian centuries and start fresh, the loss, even if the Bible were retained, would be immense.  When it is once admitted that a body of facts lies at the basis of the Christian religion, the efforts which past generations have made toward the classification of the facts will have to be treated with respect.  In no branch of science would there be any real advance if every generation started fresh with no dependence upon what past generations have achieved.  Yet, in theology, vituperation of the past seems to be thought essential to progress.  And upon what base slander the vituperation is based!  After listening to modern tirades against the great creeds of the church, one receives rather a shock when one turns to the Westminster Confession, for example, or to that tenderest and most theological of books, “Pilgrim’s Progress” of John Bunyan, and discovers that, in doing so, one has turned from modern shallow phrases to a “dead orthodoxy” that is pulsating with life in every word.  In such orthodoxy, there is life enough to set the whole world aglow with Christian love.

As a matter of fact, however, in the modern vituperation of doctrine, it is not merely the great theologians or the great creeds that are being attacked, but the New Testament and our Lord Himself.  In rejecting doctrine, the liberal preacher is rejecting the simple words of Paul, “Who loved me and gave Himself for me,” just as much as the “homoousion” of the Nicene Creed.  For the word “doctrine” is really used not in its narrowest, but in its broadest sense.  The liberal preacher is really rejecting the whole basis of Christianity, which is a religion founded not on aspirations, but on facts.  Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity – liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative.  Liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.

From: Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen; reprint (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), pp. 46-47.  Originally published by Macmillan in 1923.

 

J. Gresham Machen at Johns Hopkins

There was, however, a lighter side to Machen’s life at Johns Hopkins than is suggested by his brilliant record under illustrious scholars.  In view of the emphasis upon graduate study and the general tone of the university, one might have anticipated that a student of his scholarly disposition would have shown little interest in typically American college life.  As a matter of fact, however, he was a representative college undergraduate who entered enthusiastically into many extracurricular activities and developed an intense loyalty to his college.  In connection with the “Half-Century” drive for funds in 1926, he did not feel that he could conscientiously contribute to the general funds “because the present movement for an increased endowment seems to be intimately connected with the plea for the abolition of an undergraduate department.”  He did contribute, however, to the Gildersleeve Fellowship in Greek which was initiated by Professor Miller.  His protest was, in part, directed against the fact that the Hopkins alumni would be left in “what is, in American life, the deplorable condition of men without a college.”  But, another consideration was that he regarded such a plan as “distinctly a retrograde step in American education.  It is a retrograde step, I think, because of the impetus which it gives to the movement away from genuine culture and toward an earlier commencement of specialization in the life of American youths.  True progress would lie in exactly the opposite direction.  Instead of encouraging the scantily educated sophomore to think that he is fit to enter upon a specialized course and to enjoy that complete liberty of which Dr. Flexner’s article (in ‘The Atlantic Monthly’) speaks, what ought to be done is to tell the student that there is no royal road to learning, that short cuts lead to disaster, and that, underneath all true research, there lies a broad foundation of general culture.”

From: J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir by Ned. B. Stonehouse; reprint (Willow Grove: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2004), p. 35.  Originally published in 1954.

Ned B. Stonehouse (1902-1962) was a member of the founding faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1929-1962) as Professor of New Testament.  Among his other books are The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ and (as editor) The Infallible Word.  He also served as the founding General Editor of the New International Commentary on the New Testament (1946-1962).

 

On the Importance of Doctrine

As a matter of fact, however, in the modern vituperation of “doctrine,” it is not merely the great theologians or the great creeds that are being attacked, but the New Testament and our Lord Himself.  In rejecting doctrine, the liberal preacher is rejecting the simple words of Paul, “who loved me and gave Himself for me,” just as much as the “homoousion” of the Nicene Creed.  For the word “doctrine” is really used not in its narrowest, but in its broadest sense.  The liberal preacher is really rejecting the whole basis of Christianity, which is a religion founded not on aspirations, but on facts.  Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity – liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.

From: Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen (New York: Macmillan and Company, 1923), pp. 46-47.

 

Literary Work

Machen’s literary adventures in his field were rather limited during the first five years of his instructorship.  Following his articles on the birth of Christ, which were published during his year abroad, no article from his pen appears in The Princeton Theological Review until 1912.  There were, however, several carefully written reviews of books, a number of which concerned the narratives of the birth of Christ and others a variety of subjects rather closely related to his courses of instruction.  Mention may also be made of his translation, from German into English, of an article by August Lang, of Halle, on “The Reformation and Natural Law” for the April, 1909, number of the Review, an article which, with others by Doumergue, Bavinck, and Warfield, was published the same year in book form under the title “Calvin and the Reformation.”  Such labor on Machen’s part, though arduous and exacting, was not especially rewarding.  Machen was greatly cheered, however, by several kind notes sent by Gildersleeve in connection with it.  Acknowledging Machen’s gift of the published volume, for example, Gildersleeve wrote, on October 9, 1909, “The stately volume in which your translation of Lang’s study is incorporated has just reached me, and I beg to renew my thanks for remembering me.  You may always count on my special interest in all the words and works of one of the most sympathetic students I have ever had in my classroom.”

From: J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir by Ned B. Stonehouse (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), p. 176.

 

Machen as Teacher

During the early years, Machen developed a number of graduate, or elective, courses, most of which were devoted to the exposition of particular books of the New Testament, including the Gospel according to John and several of the Pauline Epistles.  As early as the years 1907-1908, he announced a course on the birth narratives, for which his fellowship thesis had provided the initiative and background, and which was to be offered year after year as one of his most celebrated and successful courses.  His opus magnum, “The Virgin Birth of Christ,” published in 1930 was, thus, the fruit of a quarter of a century of study and reflection.  The other comparable course, “Paul and His Environment,” was not developed until about the time of his delivery of the Sprunt Lectures in 1921, published the same year as “The Origin of Paul’s Religion.”  Though this may come as a surprise to the students who crowded his classrooms in the twenties and later, the number of students who elected Machen’s graduate courses during the earlier years was quite small.  At times, this was a source of considerable discouragement to him and contributed to his doubts as to his own qualifications as a teacher.  A more reasonable explanation, however, is that, as a very young man whose reputation as a distinguished scholar had not yet been established, he could not be expected to compete, in this regard, with Warfield and other older men of renown.

From: J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir by Ned B. Stonehouse (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1954), p. 175.

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), after a sterling teaching career at Princeton Theological Seminary, in Princeton, New Jersey (1906-1929), was a member of the founding faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1929-1937).

Ned B. Stonehouse (1902-1962) was Machen’s colleague and successor as Professor of New Testament at Westminster.

 

Intellectual Decadence

The intellectual decadence of the day is not limited to the Church or to the subject of religion, but appears in secular education, as well.  Sometimes, it is assisted by absurd pedagogic theories which, whatever their variety in detail, are alike in their depreciation of the labor of learning facts.  Facts, in the sphere of education, are having a hard time.  The old-fashioned notion of reading a book or hearing a lecture and simply storing up in the mind what the book or the lecture contains – this is regarded as entirely out of date.  A year or so ago, I heard a noted educator give some advice to a company of college professors – advice which was typical of the present tendency in education.  It is a great mistake, he said in effect, to suppose that a college professor ought to teach.  On the contrary, he ought simply to give the students an opportunity to learn.

From: What is Faith? by J. Gresham Machen (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925), p. 15.

 

The Importance of Doctrine

But, as a matter of fact, such a strange state of affairs does not prevail at all.  It is not true that, in basing Christianity upon an event, the disciples of Jesus were departing from the teaching of their Master.  For, certainly, Jesus, Himself, did the same thing.  Jesus did not content Himself with enunciating general principles of religion and ethics.  The picture of Jesus as a sage similar to Confucius, uttering wise maxims about conduct, may satisfy Mr. H. G. Wells as he trips along lightly over the problems of history, but it disappears so soon as one engages seriously in historical research.  “Repent,” said Jesus, “for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”  The gospel which Jesus proclaimed in Galilee consisted in the proclamation of a coming Kingdom.  But, clearly, Jesus regarded the coming of the Kingdom as an event or as a series of events.  No doubt, He also regarded the Kingdom as a present reality in the souls of men.  No doubt, He represented the Kingdom, in one sense, as already present.  We shall not really succeed in getting along without this aspect of the matter in our interpretation of Jesus’s words.  But, we shall also not get along without the other aspect, according to which the coming of the Kingdom depended upon definite and catastrophic events.  But, if Jesus regarded the coming of the Kingdom as dependent upon a definite event, then His teaching was similar at the decisive point to that of the primitive Church.  Neither He nor the primitive Church enunciated merely general and permanent principles of religion.  Both of them, on the contrary, made the message depend upon something that happened.  Only, in the teaching of Jesus the happening was represented as still being in the future while, in that of the Jerusalem Church, the first act of it at least lay already in the past.  Jesus proclaimed the event as coming.  The disciples proclaimed part of it, at least, as already past.  But, the important thing is that both Jesus and the disciples did proclaim an event.  Jesus was, certainly, not a mere enunciator of permanent truths, like the modern liberal preacher.  On the contrary, He was conscious of standing at the turning point of the ages, when what had never been was now to come to be.

But, Jesus announced not only an event.  He announced, also, the meaning of the event.  It is natural, indeed, that the full meaning could be made clear only after the event had taken place.  If Jesus really came, then, to announce and to bring about an event, the disciples were not departing from His purpose if they set forth the meaning of the event more fully than it could be set forth during the preliminary period constituted by the earthly ministry of their Master.  But Jesus, Himself, though by way of prophecy, did set forth the meaning of the great happening that was to be at the basis of the new era.

From: Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen; reprint (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1923]), pp. 30-32.  Originally published: New York: Macmillan & Company, 1923.

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) taught New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, in Princeton, New Jersey (1906-1929) and at Westminster Theological Seminary, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1929-1937).  He was a member of the founding faculty at the latter institution, and was also a founding member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936).

 

Faith and Propositional Revelation

But here, as elsewhere, the Bible is found to be true to the plainest facts of the soul; whereas the modern separation between faith in a person and acceptance of a creed is found to be psychologically false.  It is perfectly true, of course, that faith in a person is more than acceptance of a creed, but the Bible is quite right in holding that it always involves acceptance of a creed.  Confidence in a person is more than intellectual assent to a series of propositions about the person, but it always involves those propositions, and becomes impossible the moment they are denied.  It is quite impossible to trust a person about whom one assents to propositions that make the person untrustworthy, or fails to assent to propositions that make him trustworthy.  Assent to certain propositions is not the whole of faith, but it is an absolutely necessary element in faith.  So, assent to certain propositions about God is not all of faith in God, but it is necessary to faith in God; and Christian faith, in particular, though it is more than assent to a creed, is absolutely impossible without assent to a creed.  One cannot trust a God whom one holds with the mind to be either non-existent or untrustworthy.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, therefore, it quite right in maintaining that “he that cometh to God must believe that he is.”  In order to trust God, or to have communion with Him, we must at least believe that He exists.

From: What is Faith? by J. Gresham Machen (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925), p. 48.

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937), was on the New Testament faculty at Princeton Theological Seminary (1906-1929).  He was instrumental in the founding of both Westminster Theological Seminary (1929) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936).  He stood for Reformed theological orthodoxy during an era when Princeton Seminary was being taken over by theological liberals.