The continuing popularity of this book in conservative Christian circles owes to a certain credulity with the argument that "liberal Christianity" has abandoned traditional doctrine entirely so as to become an institution of untruth and false teaching, "Liberal, false christianity" is thus asserted to be concerned only with cultural acceptance and the primacy of "tolerance." It is claimed in a caricature of mainline Presbyterian Church (USA) that the only sin PC(USA) institutionally denounces is schism and the "intolerance" of diversity. See here for a recent example of this argument. As if the PC(USA) does not regularly and deeply engage in the denunciation of and missionary struggle against systematic and personal sins of injustice, oppression, love of mammon, violence, and the political enablement of militarization of the Middle East and elsewhere. In reality, the Machen followers seem hasty to point to personal sins of "relativism" and "tolerance" as if those are more egregious workings of untruth than "schism," and the systematic sins just listed.
In this appreciation of Machen and his historical legacy by John Piper in 1993, we learn that Machen at the end of his life regretted his use of the term "liberal" to label his anti-Christian "enemy of objective truth." Machen wished he had used the term "modernism" to characterize the enemy of his fundamentalist Christianity. And not just any form of modernism, but the contemporary "pragmatism" of his day. Machen really did not have a handle on his language if he could not distinguish among "liberalism," "modernism," and pragmatism." Yet Piper without awareness of the irony claims that the first lesson "we might learn from Machen" is
"Machen’s life and thought issue a call for all of us to be honest, open, clear, straightforward and guileless in our use of language."
Machen may have been "guileless in his language" but he bears some responsibility for the last 90 years of demonizing of "liberals" by his followers and in greater society. So much polemics and demonizing about a label! So much follows that have led fundamentalist, "orthodox" idolaters of the Westminster Confession of Faith into the ethically dubious alley of anti-liberal political economy and to denunciations of the social gospel's concern for the poor and vulnerable. I am considering making it a point to stop any further reading of tracts about "liberals" unless that term is defined and historically contextualized. Ricardo? Jimmy Carter? Ritschl? Milton Friedman? Obama? Spong? Donna Butler Bass? J.S. Mill? John Dewey? Annie Lamott? Martin Luther King? Robert Rubin? All of these MIGHT identify with the term liberal, but with substantive and sometimes massively different truth and justice claims and programs. A blanket demonization of varied forms and individuals who may (or may not) be liberal is lazy and unfair. Machen and his legacy contributes to that.
Radical Calvinism's claim to be "objective truth" rests on first principles of Biblical literalism and infallibility and, according to Piper, the essentials of adherence to the five fundamentals of Calvinism. I believe Calvin was one of the most socially and contextually perceptive interpreters of the Bible. However, nowhere in either Calvin or in the Westminster Confession of Faith do I find these "five fundamentals" justified as such. I have no other knowledge of five-fold doctrinal exposition of Calvinism outside of the tradition that flows from the popularizing of the Canons of Dort (1619), namely simplified "TULIP Calvinism:" " total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement (arguing the efficacy of Christ's atoning work was applicable only to the elect and not the unregenerate world), irresistible (or irrevocable) grace, and the perseverance of the saints. "
I have respect for John Piper's exegetical skills. His study,
The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (1993) is a classic Reformed exegesis of God's absolute sovereignty over election. I recognize and accept his exposition of Paul's inspired and holy use and interpretation of Exodus and its application to the church. However, TULIP Calvinism is not the same thing as Reformed Calvinism and is not the same thing as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and I find it unreasonable to believe that either that Confession or the Canons of Dort completed once and for all the action of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal development and missionary calling for the Reformed Church! Moreover, the Westminster Confession of Faith acknowledges that the Holy Spirit is historically alive and necessary for recognizing the truth. "Creeds of men" are explicitly recognized as fallible by the Westminster Assembly in its Confession I.x.
So why is the Westminster Confession of Faith made the standard of objective truth for so called "orthodox" Presbyterians? I suppose if I were to read Piper's or another Machen supporter's illustration of the working of the enemy to truth or Gospel in the PC(USA) Confession of 1967 or Barmen Declaration, that PC(USA) institutionally confesses, I might have a better understanding of their perspectives. Some conservatives hint that the PC(USA) is either the arch-enemy of "objective truth" or is rife with individual representatives of the enemy by its and their refusal to definitively list with historical finality the "definitive tenets of the Reformed Faith." World Magazine's editor explicitly names its foundational struggle with the presence of the "liberal, truth trashing" enemy in Christianity. So much of this seems owed to Machen's mishandling of language brought on by what seems to me some of his followers'' inability to fully and humbly appreciate the continuing operation of the Holy Spirit since 1646--and alongside his and his followers' inability to maneuver in the modern culture of tolerance and intellectual humility.
I have one more point I'd like to make, and that is a point about "pragmatism." Piper claims that Machen understood Modernism to be exemplified in pragmatism. Pragmatism, among other implications, includes a philosophy and ethical operation in times of uncertainty and incomplete truth claims. Pragmatists recognize the value of diversity, deliberation, and tolerance of controversy in reaching inter-subjective agreements about courses of social action. Pragmatism is a threat to institutions that claim a monopoly on objective truth. Pragmatism is indeed a threat to Biblical literalism and bibliolatry. (Bibliolatry I define as the denial of the Holy Spirit's working outside the letter of Scripture.) Pragmatism, however, is not the only expression of modernity. So Machen's book might be more reasonably read not as a complete polemics against modernism or liberalism (neither of which it presents fairly in scope or quality) in the church, but of pragmatism. Modernity is not inherently anti-fundamentalist. Some modern atheists and fascism, among other enthusiasms, make their own totalizing claims about objective truth.
Some modernists are not pragmatists. I point to an example in the philosopher Andrew Levine, author of In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People (2011). Levine here and in his articles posted on Counterpunch.org argues that modernist representatives mostly in the 19th Century once and for all proved the death of God, and that liberal Christians are to be reproached for intellectual dishonesty--even if and when they might be allies for Levine's modernist cohort of philosophes in progressive political struggles. Levine's is a form of modernism that is not pragmatic, at least as I understand the term and movement. It is rationalism that claims privileges for itself and won't make utilitarian or deontological alliances with "bad thought" holders. Levine makes the totalizing claim that Christian faith is objectively untrue and, it seems to follow, ethically and politically without integrity.
Pragmatism, though, seems to me to be a reasonable program of modernity to come to grips with finite institutional, systemic, and individual capacity for wisdom and the recurrent tragedy of unchecked individual and minority power, even when we find it in the arrogance of Church. Applying it to Christianity, pragmatism allows one method for recognizing and embracing humility that accepts the finiteness of all human institutions no matter how closed, or conversely, how deliberative. This humility as to the truth to my mind serves the infinite God whose nature and Holy Spirit are alive, working in ways never totally grasped by any objective system or authority (or 17th C Creed). I can believe, as I do, that the Bible is a trustworthy and Spirit-inspired guide to ethics, countering sin, salvation/reconciliation (justification), and the atonement, election, and resurrection without claiming that I or my denomination or even religion knows "objective truth" in all meaningful applications. That fundamentally is my understanding of the implications of Philippians 2.6-8. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, did not see himself as equal with God and thus was objectively humble. Not "objectively knowledgeable," at least in my Christology based on my reading of Scripture. Jesus denied knowledge ("Why?" from the Cross) of objective truth in matters of "times and places" (Acts 1.7, Mt. 24.36), yet that does not stop some of His Armageddon-anticipating followers from claiming (or responding to) this as predictive knowledge. Are the repeated frustrations of expected dates of Armageddon in fundamentalist circles enough to demonstrate the limitations of "objective truth" claims in religion? It is in my and many others' estimation. These predictions are a scandal to outsiders to whom we must announce the message of God's plan of overcoming death. Jesus warns us against these! Why is it still going on? Why do we try to hasten the end by promoting forces seeming to bring on Armageddon? That is not my meaning when I say, Come Lord Jesus.
To his credit, Machen apparently was dismissive of millenialism and chiliasm, while before him Calvin admitted that he did not understand the Book of Revelation and refused to write a commentary on it. A whole Book of the Bible, Revelation, so privileged, studied, and expounded in literalist circles of Christianity, and yet the putative founder of fundamentalist's objective truthism, Calvin, admits a lack of understanding. 65/66 understanding of the Bible worked out in 65 commentaries, impressive as the achievement is to me in Calvin's work, is no claim to full, objective understanding of even 16th Century religious reality, much less 1st Century Judean reality. Does this Christian faction argue that the Holy Spirit moved definitively between Calvin in Geneva in the 1530s to the Synod of Dort in the 1610s (or Westminster Assembly in the 1640s), laying out the final deposit of objective truth in the so-called essential tenets of faith? If so, what is the objective truth behind the Holy Spirit choosing that particular slice of northwestern Euro-male dominated, guild developing (Anglo-Dutch middle class coalescing) history to invest with the "treasures of all knowledge"? Admittedly, that question reveals my bias.
One of my struggles as a Christian and a human being is my sense of anguish at the suffering and injustice in the world around me. Anguish for me is the expression of sadness mixed with anger. When I repress my sadness and am conscious only of my anger, I lack humility and love and privilege my own fundamentalism, which is the finite emotional and intellectual makeup of my soul, context, and history. On rare occasions, the Holy Spirit comes and guides and comforts, leading me not into objective truth, but "all truth" sufficient for my role and calling in the world. I have flaws, vices, limitations, and I also have gifts, context, and opportunities to serve God through charity, hospitality, and testimony. In no way do I believe that I am constantly enlightened by the Holy Spirit into the infinite purpose presupposed by claims to "objectivity." As a Christian called to faith by the Holy Spirit operating in soul, scripture, and society, I am to play a limited, personal role with a personal touch. As I grow obedient and the Christ consciousness takes over more and more of my life, I grow in appreciation for the magnificence and glory of God's work around me. The Holy Spirit in relationship with the Bible works in me "contextually," with me a creature, a clay pot, limited, partial, flawed, "depraved," sinful, and all. That is what makes me humble about what my truth says to other people and contexts. "Liberal Reformed Christianity," to the extent it is not caricatured, to my mind lives out this humility and struggle for peace and social justice and I believe the Bible, Jesus, Torah, the Prophets, Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit demands this humility and ethical program of all Christians. If I am pressed, I will acknowledge that I am a "Christian with liberal politics"but I do not with that acknowledgement give up my fundamentalism. I can and need to learn from others with different fundamentals. But they must first show me their fruits of the spirit operating ethically, socially, lovingly.
Phil 2. 6 (NRSV)
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
No comments:
Post a Comment