What Shall be Preached?

Embarking on a journey into the early 20th century with J. Gresham Machen has been quite thrilling, even though I'm only in the early stages of his book Christianity and Liberalism. I began reading Machen in large part because of the current ideological and religious discussions surrounding the post-modern culture. Granted, it may seem a tad contradictory that I decided to read a book that refutes modernism/modernity, the same ideology that post-modernity is attempting to refute, in order to find refutations for post-modernism. But ironically enough, many of the modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism are exactly the same as some of the more recent post-modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism:

(These are just a few)

1. The abandonment of scientific theology
2. The desire to avoid giving offense on account of the Gospel
3. Skepticism regarding creeds
4. The desire for experientialism
5. Emphasis upon the praxis of religion.


The two that intrigue me the most are, "The abandonment of scientific theology" and "Emphasis upon the praxis of religion." For multiple reasons I, as well as Machen, believe that these two reactions cannot coincide in true Christianity. Machen, in reference to Paul, states that "Christianity was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first" (23). Christianity is a way of life based on doctrine. If Christ never rose from the dead objectively then our "faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 1:15). This is just one of the many doctrines upon which Christianity is dependent. All of the teachings (doctrine) about the life and work of Christ, the attributes and work of the Godhead, and a plethora of others are necessary.

Machen finds support for his refutation of the idea that "Christianity is not a doctrine but a life" (20) from Philippians, and then from Galatians:

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers ? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. (21-24)

I believe that Machen's argument is biblically sound and intellectually compelling - but really the former is more important for any defense of Christianity. It is quite apparent that doctrine, in Paul's eyes, was extremely important. So how can we decide to abandon doctrine and still call ourselves faithful? because we live morally decent lives? It's not an either-or issue (praxis or doctrine). It's a both-and issue. We must know the doctrine that governs our actions. Without clear knowledge of God and His demands, we would have no practice at all.

I believe that the study of doctrine and the resulting praxis are two doctrines from the Bible that are inextricably linked (Luke 8:21, 11:28). And what a joy it is to know that we have a Savior who has bought for us delight in God, through intellectual faculties and through experience.

We are saved by grace (Rom. 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 2:5,8), through faith - in a definite object (Hab. 2:4; Luke 18:42; Eph. 2:8), unto good works (Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:18; Jam. 2:20).

"It appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending" - J. Gresham Machen