Christianity, Liberalism and the New Evangelicalism

Carl Trueman gave a lecture for the Evangelical Library West on the US theologian J. Gresham Machen and his disputes with theological liberalism. Many of Machen's concerns are relevant today . . .

The first thing Machen seeks to demonstrate in his work is the importance of doctrine, that is, of the church's verbal declaration of what it actually believes to be true. Indeed, while this topic occupies the first chapter, it is without doubt the underlying theme and presupposition of the entire work without which the rest really makes no sense at all.

To establish the importance of doctrine as such, Machen makes a number of points.

First, he indicates that objection to doctrine in itself is often a highly specious move, and one which the Christian should not allow the liberal to make. We are all, I guess, familiar with those who say that it is not theology or doctrine which is important, but the presence of Christ in the heart. Such a statement is as false as it is true. What is more often than not being objected to in such statements, says Machen, is not the notion of doctrine pure and simple but a particular doctrine or system of doctrines with which the liberal disagrees. Thus, the liberal is often as doctrinaire, if not more so, than the person or the tradition which he or she opposes. Such a point scarcely needs any corroboration today; we have only to think of the virulent abuse and sneering contempt heaped upon evangelicals, not because they believe something with passion and conviction, but because what they believe happens to conflict with the views of those who have power and influence at denominational HQ, or Westminster, or Fleet Street. The liberal bishops and the religious pundits in the national media are as dogmatic in their creeds as evangelicals; what they object to is not creeds per se, but the particular creed to which evangelicals are committed. We should therefore not allow objection to particular doctrinal convictions to masquerade as objection to doctrine in general.

Liberal argument

Machen moves on from this preliminary point to deal with the liberal argument that Christianity is not a system of doctrines but a way of life. This is the kind of argument put forward by those who wished to reduce Christianity to a code of ethics, a form of religious self-understanding, a way of living that embodied love to God and love to neighbour, but which did not go so far as to claim that Christianity offered any utterly unique basis for so doing. For many like this, Christianity represented the best basis for ethical conduct, but it was, at the end of the day, only quantitatively, not qualitatively, different to Judaism and Islam. In other words, Christianity represented a higher form of religious consciousness than these two, but not something which was different in any deep, radical sense.

To this kind of argument, Machen responds that Christianity is not simply a way of life; it is a way of life founded upon and rooted in a very distinct message. It is not reducible to mere feeling or sentiment; it is based upon the historical account of ancient Israel as it culminated in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. These are the things which give Christianity its uniqueness, its particularity; and these are the things which make Christianity at its core irreducibly doctrinal.

Machen follows this up by looking at the attitude of Paul in his letters. At no point does Paul ever say that doctrine is indifferent and that it is only practice that matters. On the contrary, the universal claims of the gospel message make such indifference an impossibility. As Machen says: '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.'

Substitute the word 'postmodernism' for 'pragmatism' and the sentence is as relevant today as it was 80 years ago when first written. The historical particularity of the events underlying the gospel message does not render them of mere local interest to first-century Jews or to the particular communities and organisations which look back to them as having special significance.

On the contrary, the claims which focus on the particular, historical man Jesus Christ have an absolutely universal relevance which pragmatism, pluralism and now postmodernism cannot be allowed to undermine or weaken in any way without a fundamental compromise of the message which is the basis of the Christian life.

Personal relationship

Objections that Christianity is not about doctrine but about a relationship with a person are also given short shrift by Machen. Here he makes the simple point that interpersonal relationships are functions of trust, and trust requires knowing who the other person in the relationship is. One cannot trust someone whom one does not know; and, if one does know the person, then one can inevitably express certain truths about the person using formulas of words - and that, at its simplest, is what Christian doctrine is. For Machen, the events of Christ's birth, Calvary, and the empty tomb are the things which reveal who God is and allow human beings to enjoy a relationship with him. Thus, one cannot meaningfully speak of having a personal relationship with God without also grasping the doctrines of incarnation, cross, and resurrection. He himself expresses it as follows: 'It is vain, then, to speak of reposing trust in the Person without believing the message. For trust involves a personal relationship between the one who trusts and Him in whom the trust is reposed. And in this case the personal relation is set by the blessed theology of the cross.'

Heart of liberalism
A few lines later he continues with a devastating put-down: 'The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus's person, as being possible without acceptance of the message of his death and resurrection, they do not really mean trust at all. What they designate as trust is really admiration and reverence.'

Here Machen touches the heart of liberalism. At the end of the day, it is not about sin and redemption as orthodox, historic Christianity understands those terms; it is rather about seeing in Christ the embodiment of the good man, the One who lives for others, the One who is ultimately to be admired and, if possible, emulated; not the One in whom faith is to be placed because of the qualitative uniqueness of His person and work.

Doctrinal indifferentism

The lessons from Machen's discussion of the importance of doctrine for the contemporary evangelical situation are quite clear: doctrinal indifferentism - that attitude which regards the individual's or church's experience of Christ as essentially separable from, more important than, or even opposed to a clear understanding of His person and work - is a sure sign both of an incipient theological liberalism and something which has little or nothing to do with the tradition of historic, orthodox Christianity.

We must not allow the rhetoric and language of personal relationships to be used as a means of downplaying the crucial importance of clear, orthodox doctrine. If we are to have a personal relationship with anyone, then that relationship depends upon a sure knowledge of who that other person is and what they are like. My personal relationship with my wife is not essentially separable from, more important than, or even opposed to my knowledge of who she is, what she says, and what she does; and the same applies to my relationship with Christ. When we keep in mind that doctrine is part and parcel of our personal knowledge of who Christ is, the danger involved in downplaying doctrine becomes crystal clear.
Now, there are no doubt few if any here today who would be willing to stand up and declare themselves to be indifferent to doctrine; but the danger on this point is often more subtle, and perhaps even unconscious, than a straightforward and explicit commitment to the kind of liberalism which Machen is criticising. My own belief is that when we reflect at any length upon our church life, it often becomes clear that we are not as far from this attitude as we might like to think. To demonstrate this, I wish to make two important points.

Personal testimonies

My first point is that the role that personal testimonies play in much of church life can serve to sideline doctrinal imperatives. At the end of the day, the gospel in the New Testament is identified with the story of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and its doctrinal significance. It is, as Machen would say, not an ethical demand but an announcement; a message of good news built upon particular historical happenings. Therefore, the gospel is not the transformation of an individual life; it is not the rescuing of someone from some evil addiction; and it is not the turning of a sinner from the path of destruction to the path of life.

All of these things can flow from the gospel; but the gospel itself is the announcement of what God achieved in Jesus Christ. Thus, while personal testimonies may have their place in church life, they should never be allowed to eclipse the preaching of the gospel which is the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ. If they are allowed to do so, then that is indicative of a church for whom the experiences of individual Christians has become more important than the doctrinal truths which in reality underpin and shape those experiences. When this happens, make no mistake - it does not matter how conservative the church claims to be, how sound its paper orthodoxy is, the difference between the theological approach of that church and that of classic liberalism is one of degree, not of kind.

Denominational collapse

My second point is that the collapse in denominational identity, or, in the case of much British evangelicalism, the complete lack of any denominational identity whatsoever, often speaks volumes about doctrinal indifferentism.

Now, I am aware of the arguments that stress the lack of denominations in the New Testament and point to the deep and mystical unity which all believers enjoy in Christ which transcends denominations. I do not deny the truth of either of these points. What I would like to suggest, however, is that much of the interdenominational and parachurch activity which goes on within evangelical circles today, is not simply or perhaps even primarily a response to these two issues, but is rather a function of a rising doctrinal indifferentism. In my own experience, parachurch and transdenominational organisations and fellowships often define themselves on paper in doctrinal terms, but in practice one of two things tends to happen.

First, these organisations may allow such liberty of interpretation regarding the doctrinal articles of constitution that such statements are rendered meaningless. The only conclusion that one can draw in such circumstances is that that which unites the members of these organisations is perceived to be something which cannot be clearly expressed in doctrinal terms. In other words, this unifying factor, whatever it may be, is anything but doctrinal. And that is doctrinal indifferentism which, if left unchecked, will become liberalism as sure as night follows day.

Second, where doctrinal statements are taken seriously and where men and women refuse to subscribe with their fingers crossed, the agreed statements can be so minimal as to be almost meaningless, as is the case, for example, with an important evangelical scholarly fellowship in the USA whose members have to believe only in inerrancy and the Trinity in order to qualify for membership. The result is that other important areas of doctrine, such as the sacraments, salvation, and the last things, are marginalised, relegated to irrelevancies, and sometimes all but forgotten. When such organisations then become a major focus of our Christian activity and draw us away from tour particular responsibilities to their local areas and to their denominations, this situation can again quickly lead to doctrinal indifferentism and to churches who lack any really distinct identity or message.

This is for the simple reason that, once we start ditching our distinctives, where do we stop? Whatever our views on, say, baptism or the Lord's Supper, these things are important. We may well enjoy fellowship with those with whom we disagree on these issues, but we should never give the impression that these things are not significant. Indeed, the existence of denominations is often an historical witness to the fact that these things are of crucial importance. Machen himself makes this point crystal clear. Speaking of differences about the sacraments, he makes the following profound observation:

That difference is indeed serious, and to deny its seriousness is a far greater error than to take the wrong side in the controversy itself. It is often said that the divided condition of Christendom is an evil, and so it is. But the evil consists in the existence of the errors which cause the divisions and not at all in the recognition of those errors when once they exist.

Do you see Machen's point? Yes, denominations and a divided Christendom are evils, but they are the result of doctrinal error, not the result of making distinctives out of trivia. Therefore, any attempt to overcome the fragmentation caused by denominations must take this point seriously and not merely sidestep the problem by relegating differences over doctrine to the level of matters indifferent. To do so is, once again, to open the door to doctrinal indifferentism, the handmaiden of theological liberalism.

It is, of course, hard in the UK, when evangelicalism is such a small movement and where it is so highly fragmented, not to sideline certain debates for the sake of interchurch co-operation. I am not advocating withdrawal from such bodies; but let us always be aware of our motives for involvement and of whatever price we are being asked to pay to sit at certain tables. I would suggest that if the price is that of giving up wholesale our belief in the importance of such things as the nature of grace, God's electing love or of the sacraments, and of turning our churches into bland manifestations of a generic, minimalist evangelicalism then the price might well prove in the long run to have been far too high.

Focal point

In this connection, I believe a further point is worth making: not only must we make sure that the focal point of our church is the doctrinal preaching of the gospel in all its fullness, we must also make sure that this doctrine penetrates to the pew. The history of the church is peppered with examples of churches which enjoyed powerful, faithful preaching for many years and yet which all but collapsed into doctrinal apathy and even heresy on the retirement or death of their minister. While a number of reasons could be given for this, one underlying factor has to be the failure of the message to pass effectively from the pulpit to the pew.

The danger in our current situation is no different. I was talking recently to the head of a parachurch organisation who was telling me how disheartened he was at the lack of doctrinal understanding among many of the young people applying to him for work. They loved the Lord Jesus; but they seemed to know next to nothing about him. This is very worrying, for if Machen was right - and I believe he was - then such lack of doctrinal knowledge actually indicates a lack of a deep and meaningful relationship with Christ. It is thus important for ministers to make sure that what they teach on a Sunday is not only doctrinally solid and wholesome, but that it is digested by the congregation. Part of that process is facilitated by making sure that the prayers prayed in church and the songs which we sing together are sound and wholesome. There is much evidence to suggest that a lot of the theology which church members imbibe comes through the prayers they hear and, especially, the songs that are sung. If these are empty of doctrinal content, it is hardly surprising that congregations are themselves doctrinally impoverished.

I guess as an elder in a Scottish Presbyterian denomination you will expect me to say this, but I'll say it anyway: the singing of Psalms is one sure way of making sure that God's Word and its teachings are imbibed by the congregation. In addition, we need to think carefully about following up preaching in a manner that ensures the doctrinal message goes home. The Puritans followed up their preaching through catechism classes; we may well feel that such are inappropriate today, given the differences in working hours, family life etc. But if that is so, we surely need to find a modern-day equivalent in order to make sure that what is said from the front of the church on a Sunday hits home on the other six days of the week.

Whatever we do, however, we need to address the problem of doctrinal indifferentism in the church membership at the current time and put into place measure to combat it. Failure to do so in this generation will inevitably lead to liberalism in the next.

This extract from 'Christianity, Liberalism and the New Evangelicalism' by Dr. Carl R. Trueman is reprinted with permission.

The transcript in booklet form of the ELW 2001 Annual Lecture is published, at £2.50 post-free in UK, by Evangelical Library West and distributed by Onesimus Books (sole distributor), PO Box 463, Bristol BS99 1DH (0117 951 4794, email Ones463UK@aol.com).

Why doctrine matters