Introduction
“From the beginning, Christianity was a campaign of witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merely what Jesus was doing within the recesses of the individual life.…On the contrary, the Epistles of Paul and all the sources make it abundantly plain that the testimony was primarily not to inner spiritual facts but to what Jesus had done once for all in His death and resurrection.” J. Gresham Machen
The greatest weapon of the Church of Jesus Christ, and the greatest threat to the enemy is a declaration of an event that happened in time and space. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, in a particular place, before a particular people and at a particular time. Jesus Christ is risen, He is risen indeed. Christ died and rose from the dead. That is history. He loved me and gave Himself for me, that is doctrine.
Therefore, Christianity is not a philosophy. It’s not an ideology, not an ethic…though our
thinking and doing should certainly be conformed to Christ. Christianity, however, is first Good News about an historical event – He is Risen. But we don’t end with the brute fact that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead…That fact has been interpreted for us. If we were simply left with a stupendous happening in time and space no one would get their knickers all wedged up their crack, and no one would have ever died for simply declaring what had happened.
It was the meaning of the event that made all of the difference in the world. Because behind the event of the risen God-man lies a very distinct doctrine about both God and man. Not just who and what they are in their inherent nature and character, but rather, who and what they are in relation to one another.
“The Christian gospel consists in an account of how God saved man, and before that gospel can be understood something must be known (1) about God and (2) about man. The doctrine of God and the doctrine of man are the two great presuppositions of the gospel. With regards to these presuppositions, as with regard to the gospel itself, modern liberalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity.” J. Gresham Machen
What this means is that, if man is dead in his trespasses and sins, if he is fallen from grace and is alienated from God, if hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, if he is corrupted in character and mind, if his heart is depraved and desperately wicked, if he is focused on self-glory above God’s, if he is completely and utterly and totally and absolutely and entirely and wholly and unquestionably, categorically and undeniably and unequivocally unable to save himself or change his nature, and as a result, of said fallen state he is under the just condemnation of God, and eternally indebted to God, than the least we can say is that man is anything but neutral regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
Because the resurrection of Jesus, not only declares that He alone conquered the grave, but it tells us that God is just, and that the grave is exactly what we naturally deserve. For those who fancy themselves to be God, or at the least, the master of their fate and the captain of their souls – this historical fact with its meaning is none-too-popular. For some, it’s a stumbling block and for others, folly. But for every Christian it’s the power of God and the wisdom of God.
The real rub in the road is when you have liberals in the church, who see the Gospel as a
stumbling block and folly, and instead of repenting, or having the integrity to leave and stop calling themselves “Christian” they seek to make the message more palatable for themselves, which is to say, their doctrine of God and doctrine of man is diametrically opposed to Christianity.
God & Man
There is no doubt that we live in a culture that’s, a mile wide and an inch deep, where we believe that Country music Christianity and Fox News Christianity are, in fact, Christianity. It’s been said that facts don’t care about your feelings – which is a pithy saying and true as far as it goes – in that, your subjective response doesn’t create objective reality. However, what is also clear and equally true in our time is that feelings don’t care much about facts either.
It's in this environment of sentimentality, gushy mushy-syrupy spirituality and emotivism that liberalism is able to make its way into the church, set-up shop and strangle the life out of it over time. What was true for the liberals in Machen’s day could also be said of the liberals in our own. That is, they could really care less about knowing God. What is really important to them is that they feel His presence. Because, after all, there is nothing narcissistic about projecting your emotions and subjective experience upon everyone else.
But there is always that one kid in class who still has a thought of two left in his head and he can’t help but ask some very basic questions, like: if you don’t really want to know God, but still want to experience God, how do you know it’s the God of the Bible that you are, in fact, experiencing? How do you know it’s not some other god? How do you know it’s not the devil? How do you know it’s not just gas? Also, what’s the interpretive grid for your experiences?
Just wanting to have an experience of God may sound super spiritual today and many will not ask any follow up questions given that it is so spiritual and all, but it’s really profoundly stupid and shallow. Anyone that’s actually read the Bible would seek some type of clarification…Many had experiences of God in the Bible and it didn’t end well…like Pharoah, or the Canaanites, or Nebuchadnezzar…Do you think Nadab and Abihu or Ananias and Sapphira just wanted to experience God?
Or just remove God from the equation. Would you ever speak about another human relationship in that way? Would you ever say that to a friend or to your spouse – and if so, would that be honoring in the least. If I told my wife that I love her so much that I really don’t want to know anything about her at all, and if she would be so kind as to stop talking so that I could really have a good experience of her, she would not be pleased, nor honored, nor happy. If we can all understand that on human level…why is it that we become so remarkably stupid when we start talking about God.
“Human affection so simple, is really just bristling with dogma. It depends upon a host of observations treasured up in the mind with regard to the character of our friends. But if human affection is thus really dependent upon knowledge, why should it be otherwise with that supreme personal relationship which is at the basis of religion? Why should we be indignant about slanders directed against a human friend, while at the same time we are patient about the basest slanders directed at God? Certainly it does make the greatest possible difference what we think about God; the knowledge of God is the very basis of religion.” J. Gresham Machen
Not only that, but to say that Jesus is God is absolutely meaningless unless the word “God” has an antecedent meaning attached to it. What does someone mean when they say that Jesus was God? If their understanding of God is not aligned with what God has revealed of Himself in Nature, in Scripture and in the incarnation of Jesus than it certainly is not the God of the Bible to which they are referring…This much should be painfully evident to us.
Liberals are not interested in doctrine, not interest in theology, not interest in creeds, or
confessions or catechisms, they’re not interested in the doctrine of God, the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of salvation…and especially not the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, or of hell.
I don’t doubt that modern liberals believe in a god, but it certainly isn’t the God of the Bible as evidenced by the doctrines they profess with the most passion and vehemence, like human sexuality being a wax nose, like the total depravity of whiteness, like sanctification through constant penance and like the universal sovereignty of the state.
The fact of the matter is, that the liberal view of God is essentially this: what God wants more than anything else is for you be happy as defined by and determined by you…This is certainly not the God of the Bible, but it vividly illustrates that East of Eden, fallen man is still seeking the throne, completely and utterly oblivious as to who God is and who man is before the Almighty. Liberalism has lost the very center and core of Christian teaching.
“But one attribute of God is absolutely fundamental in the Bible; one attribute is absolutely necessary in order to render intelligible all the rest. That attribute is the awful transcendence of God. From beginning to end the Bible is concerned to set forth the awful gulf that separates the creature from the Creator. It is true, indeed, that according to the Bible God is immanent in the world. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him. But He is immanent in the world not because He is identified with the world, but because He is the free Creator and Upholder of it. Between the creature and the Creator a great gulf is fixed.” J. Gresham Machen
At its core, despite all of its bluster about being super-spiritual and about being super-humble (while being better than you), liberalism actually holds a very low view of God because they hold to a high view of man…Without a true acknowledging of God as He has revealed Himself you can never actually know yourself, and without a knowledge of yourself you will never truly turn to God…because of this, Liberalism tends everywhere to break down the distinctions between God and man.
So then, it’s not just the doctrine of God that Liberals have managed to pervert, it’s also the doctrine of man…along with everything else…Again, Machen illustrates this for us, “Modern liberalism has lost all sense of the gulf that separates the creature from the Creator; its doctrine of man follows naturally from its doctrine of God.
But is not only the creaturely limitations of mankind which are denied. Even more important is another difference. According to the Bible, man is a sinner under the just 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.
Liberals modus operandi is that man is inherently good, it’s only his thoughts and actions that let him down, and because he is so good it must be his environment that is the cause of his not-goodness. Therefore, if we could fix everything around us, that is not as awesome as us, then everything will be awesome like us, and the world will be a far better place. Christianity starts with the exact opposite presupposition.
That is, that the problem of everything lurks internally, in the heart. That sin goes all the way down and all the way through. The real problem with man isn’t just that the problem is out there, but rather, that the problem is out there because it’s already in here – that is, in the human heart – the problem is rebellion against God. The problem is sin. That is a bitter pill to swallow for natural man because it means he is at odds with God and can do nothing about it.
“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.” J. Gresham Machen
The consciousness of sin used to be the starting point of all preaching…Why else would the News of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection be Good? This is why all Christian preaching begins with, “Repent and believe the Gospel.”
Through the death of Jesus death, our great enemy death, died. Through the resurrection of Jesus, we too can be raised to newness of life through repentance and faith in Him. All that separates us from the presence of God and makes us enemies of God has been dealt with in Christ. The Son of God became a man so that men may become sons of God.
Yes, Christianity begins with the broken heart and a consciousness of sin, but it certainly doesn’t stay there…it is not a religion of morbid introspection…not a continual beating of the breast before God – it starts there, yes, but through repentance and faith in Jesus it leads to the redemption and the forgiveness of sins and full restoration with God. Without the consciousness of sin, there is no gospel.
“The trouble with the paganism of ancient Greece, as with the paganism of modern times, was not in the superstructure, which was glorious, but in the foundation, which was rotten. There was always something to be covered up; the enthusiasm of the architect was maintained only by ignoring the disturbing fact of sin. In Christianity, on the other hand, nothing needs to be covered up. The fact of sin is faced squarely once for all, and is dealt with by the grace of God. But then, after sin has been removed by the grace of God, the Christian can proceed to develop joyously every faculty that God has given him. Such is the higher Christian humanism – a humanism founded not upon human pride but upon divine grace.” J. Gresham Machen
Without the consciousness of sin there is no salvation and the gospel remains and idle tale.
Conclusion
I would like to conclude here by giving Machen the last word. Though, what he says here was written 100 years ago, it could have just as easily been written yesterday.
“The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task – she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: ‘You people are very good,’ he says; ‘you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible – especially in the life of Jesus – something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people.’ Such is the modern preaching. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He.” J. Gresham Machen
_edited_edited.png)
