Old Life New Year Revelries

Published on by D. G. Hart

Celebrating New Year’s Day is always mixed with sobriety (talk about paradoxes) thanks to January 1 being the anniversary of J. Gresham Machen’s death (1937). He died of pneumonia at 7:30 Central Standard Time in a Roman Catholic hospital in Bismarck, North Dakota.

To honor the man, here is an excerpt from his defense of his vote against a motion before the Presbytery of New Brunswick to support Prohibition (which by the way bears on this matter of the Bible speaking to all of life and the flip side of Christian liberty):

In the first place, no one has a greater horror of the evils of drunkenness than I or a greater detestation of any corrupt traffic which has sought to make profit out of this terrible sin. It is clearly the duty of the church to combat this evil.

With regard to the exact form, however, in which the poser of civil government is to be used in this battle, there may be difference of opinion. Zeal for temperance, for example, would hardly justify an order that all drunkards should be summarily butchered. The end in that case would not justify the means. Some men hold that the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act are not a wise method of dealing with the problem of intemperance, and that indeed those measures, in the effort to commplish moral good, are really causing moral harm. I am not expressing any opinion on this question now, and did not do so by my vote in the Presbytery of New Brunswick. But I do maintain that those who hold the view that I have just mentioned have a perfect right to their opinion, so far as the law of our church is concerned, and should not be coerced in any way by ecclesiastical authority. The church as a right to exercise discipline where authority for condemnation of an act can be found in Scripture, but it has no such right in other cases. And certainly Scripture authority cannot be found in the particular matter of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act . . .

In making of itself, moreover, in so many instances primarily an agency of law enforcement, and thus engaging in the duties of the police, the church, I am constrained to think, is in danger of losing sight of its proper function, which is that of bringing to bear upon human souls the sweet and gracious influences of the gospel. Important indeed are the functions of the police, and members of the church, in their capacity as citizens, should aid by every proper means within their power in securing the discharge of those functions. But the duty of the church in its corporate capacity is of quite a different nature. (“Statement on the Eighteenth Amendment,” J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 394-95).

46 thoughts on “Old Life New Year Revelries”

  1. It’s oddly comforting that some things never change – it seems as if the church has always had a tendency to overstep it’s ordained bounds and exert itself where it has not been called. Regardless of the consternation of some, the resurgence of Machen’s Warrior Children, has at least functioned to question some of the excesses of the church in our day. Here’s to another year of being “that guy” in the back of The Triumphal Church 101 raising his hand and saying “yeah, but…”

    Like

  2. I’ll raise a glass in JGM’s honor today. In addition to champion of Christian liberty, he was also a fine Latinist and mentored by one of America’s greatest classicists, Basil L. Gildersleeve. This cheers my heart more than the rum I’ll raise in his honor.

    Like

  3. Jesus is born in a humble stable, Machen dies in Bismarck, North Dakota. Underdog stories don’t always begin and end with the visible glory many would look for. So it is with God’s work in His church through the humble means of Word & Sacrament. Keep fighting what appear to men to be losing battles in 2013.

    Like

  4. From “This Day in Presbyterian History”:

    Many have wondered if J. Gresham Machen couldn’t have taken better care of himself and remained on the scene to further help the struggling conservative Presbyterian movement along in its early days.

    Those who know the story of J. Gresham Machen know that he died of pneumonia while on a speaking tour in North Dakota. But did you know he had been sick for most of the prior month of December? It must have been his strong sense of duty or the urgency of the times that drove him to honor that scheduled engagement on the wintry Dakota plains.

    For several years Dr. Machen had been speaking on the radio in Philadelphia, as part of a short devotional program. On December 13, 1936, Dr. Allan A. MacRae, a young faculty member at Westminster Seminary, wrote to Dr. Machen:

    . . . As I heard your splendid message on the radio this afternoon, and noted the very evident severe cold which is troubling you, I felt especially regretful about disturbing you at this time. Nevertheless I felt that it was necessary that I ask your advice about a certain matter…

    Then, a few short weeks later, after Dr. Machen had died, Dr. MacRae wrote to Dr. Oswald T. Allis, another Westminster professor:

    When I wrote you a few days ago I had no idea that Dr. Machen’s illness was at all serious. Friday night at midnight Paul Woolley phoned to tell me that he had died. It was a terrible shock to all of us. Paul said that he sent you a cable.
    Dr. Machen had been troubled with a cold for the last three or four weeks. He was always quite susceptible to colds so we were not especially concerned about it. Over Christmas it was very warm here. When he left for North Dakota one hardly needed an overcoat in Philadelphia. Out there it was four above zero–a very severe change. He spoke at Bismark Tuesday evening. Sam Allen was with him. After the meeting he mentioned that he was suffering severe pain. His temperature was found to be 102º. He went right to the hospital and it was diagnosed as pleurisy. The next day it turned out to be pneumonia. Sam Allen stayed with him all the time, except for the interval when he went to his own Church to conduct prayer meeting Wednesday evening. I have not yet talked with anyone who was there. All we know is from the newspapers, and from the conversations that Paul has had over long distance phone lines. I gather that he was conscious most of the time, and under an oxygen tent for almost three days. Friday evening at 7:30 he breathed his last.

    Like

  5. Love the Machen quote. Your preamble leaves something to be desired. “All of life” Christianity does not imply ecclesiastical meddling in all of life. That’s what Machen is opposing. It’s likely that Machen had an opinion on this matter–an opinion that was informed by his Christian worldview, but such an opinion is not ecclesiastically enforceable because it is not explicitly taught in scripture and thus is not an article of faith. This does not mean that outside the church in other societal spheres that Christians (and others) of like mind cannot band together to seek to influence the culture to embrace principles consonant with the kingdom of God. It does mean that the church qua church does not do this. Machen’s defense was just that. The church is speaking out of place when it attempts to do the work of other spheres.

    I hope you know that I agree with you in much of what you say. Why else would a neo-Calvinist suffer the abuse that is heaped upon one at oldlife.org. The ecclesiology of evangelicalism and even of the CRCNA leaves much to be desired in this area–with the church qua church disregarding proper sphere sovereignty. But you go too far and seem to suggest in your rhetoric at least that if a matter doesn’t go through ecclesiastical channels that one’s faith is not involved. I’d guess that you don’t really think this, but I have to take your words for what they mean.

    Happy New Year, Darryl! Carpe diem!

    Like

  6. Terry, I am glad you are here to try to keep me honest. But here’s the problem with your construction. A the conclusion or application Christian w-w is not binding on others. Of course, this is not the practice by many neo-Cals who go from w-w to bullying those who don’ agree. But you’re not a typical neo-Cal — maybe you spent too much time in the OPC. But if the consequences of a Christian w-w are not binding, then what is the point? In fact, it gets worse. Here you have an outlook informed by the truths revealed by the Lord-God of the universe. And yet, that outlook is not binding on others. It is merely optional. So the norm of Christianity becomes merely one person’s opinion.

    Granted, I prefer your non-huffy neo-Calvinism to other varieties. But it does seem to precisely what neo-Calvinism was designed not to do — give Christians a diversity of outlets for the cultural activities. Kuyper wanted pluralism in Dutch society, but he wanted Calvinists to be a united group. That’s why so many neo-Cals don’t do well when others disagree with them.

    Like

  7. Creation is revelation. It’s God’s speech that orders the world. Unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately) Creational law that governs society is more forgiving in the short run than Creational law governing falling objects. We discover Creational norms through experience and reason rather than through special revelation. Creational law is as authoritative as Biblical revelation but we have less perspicuity. Thus, there is less consensus. Of course, even where there is Biblical revelation, there’s not always complete agreement. So, I’m not sure the church as church fares much better. Not sure it would be much different in a unfallen, fulfilled world. The human tasks of dominion, stewardship, and culture building remain. All of life as God intended it to the glory of God. It’s part of what God intended us to do and to be.

    And, yes, I am influenced by the OPC. She’s Kuyperian at her core. Witness the Allen Curry review in the latest NH. Warmed my heart, it did.

    Like

  9. Following close behind was C. Van Til, Ned Stonehouse, R.B. Kuiper. Vos and Ridderbos have been standard fare at the Westminsters for decades. And some might argue that Machen was Kuyperian 😉

    The OPC–the perfect blend of Old Princeton and Amsterdam–okay, with a touch of Scottish Presbyterianism. Oh yeah, don’t forget those Rushdooney influences. And what about those New Lifers. Surely not all of them VR’d. “My Tribute” made it into the Trinity Hymnal. I think Jay Adams influenced a few OPC pastors along the way. Will the real OPC please stand up?

    Or perhaps the OPC is whatever DGH says it is.

    Like

  10. Terry, not the “real” Trinity Hymnal. And let’s not forget where the OPC is trending. New Life is in the PCA, which is also where tranformationalists and Dutchmen like Dr. K. go. The OPC has recovered Machen and now is a comfortable home for 2kers.

    Like

  11. D.G. – “The OPC has recovered Machen and now is a comfortable home for 2kers.”

    Erik – One might even think that D.G. and Van Drunen have had something to do with this. If Neocalvinists ever take over the URCNA I might be joining you in the OPC.

    Like

  14. Erik, warning: neo-Calvinists can’t play cards. The CRC 1924 Synod that embraced common grace and unleashed the Protestant Reformed, banned cards, theater, and dance. Square inches don’t extend to square dancing.

    Like

  15. D. G. Hart: Erik, warning: neo-Calvinists can’t play cards. The CRC 1924 Synod that embraced common grace and unleashed the Protestant Reformed, banned cards, theater, and dance. Square inches don’t extend to square dancing.

    RS: By extension, then, from theater to movies. After all, a movie is simply a recorded play with “special” effects. Regarding attendance at the theater and the ballroom as sinful activity has been around for a long time in Reformed history.

    Like

  16. D.G. – “and dance”

    Erik – I wondered why John Frame was in the PCA and not the URC.

    Speaking of the PCA, it’s a bit of a strange haven for Dr. K. He’ll talk to them about “cultural engagement” with a Christian labor union or political party in mind and they’ll hear that they need to have a Christian puppet show for the kids in the community. That and he talks about a lot of deceased Dutch CRC ministers.

    Sorry to those of you in the PCA, but I couldn’t resist.

    Like

  17. Erik, neo take over may not be too far away in the URCNA. It was the one thing it didn’t shed coming out of the CRC, which tends to make the-CRC-that-doesn’t-ordain-women.

    Like

  19. Darryl, do you mean that the GA approved Trinity Hymnal is not the real Trinity Hymnal? Seems like a rather low view of an ecclesiastical decision.

    You need to update your CRCNA history book. The erroneous decision of the 20’s has been off the books since the 60’s and 70’s. See, for example, http://crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/worldly-amusements.

    The OPC allows 2K and neo-Cals together the way she allows historic pre-mils/post-mils/a-mils together and old-earth/young-earth creationists and exclusive psalm singers/hymn singers and two-/three-office Presbyterianism. It’s one of those theological “liberties” that is one of the real strengths of the OPC and historic American Presbyterianism. If it’s not confessional (or part of the animus of the confession), then there’s a toleration of different viewpoints.

    Do you honestly think that Kuyperians are being run out of the OPC?

    I have always struggled with whether it is easier/better to be a “liberal” in the OPC or PCA or a “conservative” in the CRCNA or EPC. We remained in the OPC during my entire 11 years at Calvin College, despite the antagonism I experienced from some. The OPC here in Fort Collins is not your average OPC and I think Rev. Allison and I both knew that it wouldn’t be a good match–we didn’t even try to make it work. We are cordial, and I occasionally visit when I need a good dose of Psalm-singing and I always appreciate his sermons, but we haven’t had to deal with each other as fellow church members or fellow elders.

    Like

  20. Terry G.: Do you honestly think that Kuyperians are being run out of the OPC?

    RS: It is called transformation of the OPC rather than transformation of the non-believing world.

    Terry G.: I have always struggled with whether it is easier/better to be a “liberal” in the OPC or PCA or a “conservative” in the CRCNA or EPC.

    RS: For the sake of interest and information, would you mind filling that out a bit more? It is an utterly fascinating statement.

    Like

  21. Terry, instead of liberal or conservative, the struggle in any ostensibly Reformed denomination is actually between being confessional or evangelical. I’d imagine it easier to be a conservative neo-Cal within the CRC than a confessionalist 2ker.

    Like

  22. Terry,

    From no dancing in 1928 to consideration of liturgical dancing in 1985? What’s next, dirty dancing?

    “Synod 1966 adopted a report titled “The Church and the Film Arts,” which states the official position of the CRC: The art of film is considered a legitimate cultural medium to be used with discernment by Christians”

    Ironic that this is right before “Bonnie and Clyde” broke the Studio Code once and for all in 1967.

    Like

  24. Richard, I consider myself thoroughly Reformed and confessionally Reformed. I have no serious exceptions to the Westminster Standards or to the Three Forms of Unity. I may quibble with some particular phrasings. There are perhaps some of the particulars of Sabbath observance in the Larger Catechism that I may take issue with, but according to the OPC ordination exams that I’ve witnessed I’m pretty mainstream. I’m a committed Presbyterian. I’m a presuppositionalist in apologetics. I consider myself to hold to the regulative principle in worship. I am an inerrantist on my view of scripture. I am a cessationist. I enjoy Psalm-singing (even Gregorian chants and Genevan psalms). I can even appreciate high-church worship (although as a good Presbyterian, I’m leery of prescribed forms). I catechized my children and continue to promote catechesis among adults. I enjoy reading Darryl Hart most of the time.

    All of that puts me in the conservative confessional camp especially when viewed in the context of Calvin College, the CRCNA with its increasing latitudinarianism and inattention to Confessionalism, although I’m impressed at how well-behaved we are come synod time, the EPC with its essentials-only “Confessionalism”.

    However, I am considered a liberal in OPC circles (and probably here at Old Life). I am a theistic evolutionist (although one who believes in a special creation of Adam and Eve and a historical–sort of along the lines of BB Warfield and perhaps JG Machen). I am open to women deacons. I don’t think the regulative principle precludes the use of contemporary worship music and instruments besides pianos and organs. I raise my hands in public worship and sometimes kneelI. have some appreciation for C.John Miller and the “New lifers” in the OPC. I like 20th century conservative Reformed theology (Gaffin, Ridderbos, Berkhouwer, Hoekema, Frame, Kline). I appreciate John Piper, Tim Keller, Kevin DeYoung, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Jonathan Edwards and learn from them even though there may be confessional differences. I think scripture calls us to Creation Care. I believe the Christian life should be affective and rigorously intellectual. Although I lean right politically, I tend to abhor bringing right-wing politics (or the American flag) into church, I’m a strong advocate of every-member evangelism and world missions. I don’t think Arminians are going to hell. I don’t think modern science is atheistic.

    Depending on the context, any one of the above list makes me a liberal.

    It was a real existential trial to be a member and active participant at Harvest OPC in Grand Rapids and at the same time be on the faculty of Calvin College.

    OK. Way too much “all about me”. I hope that gives you more of a sense of what I was getting at.

    Like

  27. Darryl, Huh? The 1924 decision no longer stands because of a decision of Synod. Kuyperianism is semi-confessional in the CRCNA with the adoption of the Contemporary Testimony: Our World Belongs to God. Its principles are embraced by many other decisions of Synod.

    Like

  29. Terry,

    But seriously, you’ve provided some interesting biography there. We got more from you in one post than we’ll get in 1000 from Richard & Bryan Cross (a.k.a. HAL 9000). DTM is another guy who is always interesting in the biographical detail he provides in his posts.

    Like

  32. Terry Gray: OK. Way too much “all about me”. I hope that gives you more of a sense of what I was getting at.

    RS: Thanks for the info. Very, very interesting. I suppose a thousand questions would not get to the bottom of it.

    Like

  33. Richard, for sure I’m freer to be involved in ministry and leadership in the CRC. In the OPC I was temporarily suspended from the eldership because of my views. I’m guessing I would never have been elected elder again by the Grand Rapids congregation.

    But there are downsides. Reformed distinctives aren’t stressed as much as I would like. The latitudinarianism that tolerates my views results in other views being tolerated. Battles have to be fought over things that would never be battles in a more conservative setting. There is less homogeneity–refreshing in some ways, maddening in other ways.

    Like

  34. Terry, how can it be a red herring when I respond to your mischaracterization of 2k? You claimed I think the church is as broad as creation. I claim I think neo-Calvinism does that — you know, all the cosmic business. Now you pull a Don.

    Like

  35. Darryl, I think you misunderstood my point. I am saying that you say that all “faith” talk comes through the church as church. This is a church hegemony. I say that believers ought to be concerned about their faith, its implications, Christ’s Lordship in areas over which the church has no concern. Thus, believers through regenerated eyes and minds (yet, with remaining sin) look at Creation and Creational tasks Christianly without having to have the church teach it as a confessional article of faith. Particularly, the believer thanks and blesses God for all he/she has. This is the core of what I see as Chrsitian plumbing or whatever. Doing all to the glory of God, serving him in our vocations, working not to please our masters but to please the Lord, thanking God for his good gifts, and the abilities he has given us, knowing that he made and sustains the world, that it belongs to him, etc. It seems to me that true vocational training, even for plumbers, includes all this. Life and learning that doesn’t include these things implicitly and perhaps explicitly denies their importance.

    I understand that having the Muslim algebra teacher stick to math is better than him giving instruction on how to give glory to Allah. True also for the atheist teaching evolutionary biology. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the best way to go. An education where all the values and meaning of Creation are woven in and includes all the necessary technical “after a fashion” (to use the CVT) is better. And, there may be places where religious factors influence the technical–bioethics, environmentalism, economic policy, etc.

    Like

  36. Terry,

    All of the things you mention in your first paragraph — how much of this is learned outside of (1) the church, or (2) the home (from parents). Do we really need Worldview Institutes and Christian schools to teach these things?

    I went to Christian college & state college. The only real differences were that some of the Christian college professors prayed before class (very few, though) and the Religion classes were taught by orthodox Christians. We had chapel services, but those were a mixed bag. I got to know a lot of Christian kids, but there were a lot of Christian kids (and Christian student groups) on the state college campus. There were also rules for campus life, but the kids who obeyed them would have acted the same on the state college campus and the kids that disobeyed them would have fit in better on the state college campus.

    Like

  37. If you want to shape worldviews, catechize well. The kid (or adult) who can think about the world through a confessional framework can tackle about anything that comes their way.

    Like

  38. Terry, the reason I emphasize the church is because the Bible and the confession do — ordinarily no salvation outside the visible church which is the kingdom of Christ. You keep forgetting that part of Reformed teaching and you keep denying that neo-Calvinism has undermined that conviction — Kingdom work, every member ministry, w-w.

    Also, your view of education strikes me as awfully parochial — sorry. I continue to be amazed at the insights of the ancients and a host of thinkers, some Christian but not Reformed. I thank God for the goodness of his creation, which includes the wisdom of non-believers. But you seem to think that Reformed Protestants can figure out a lot on their own because of their religious convictions — as if Reformed believers invented philosophy or banking or historical knowledge.

    I don’t want non-Reformed thinkers telling me what Christianity means. But I don’t want Reformed Protestants telling me what the election of 1828 means. Belief in God and Christ does not increase IQ or produce wisdom. If it did, why have the oversight of elders?

    Like

  40. D.G. Hart: I don’t want non-Reformed thinkers telling me what Christianity means. But I don’t want Reformed Protestants telling me what the election of 1828 means. Belief in God and Christ does not increase IQ or produce wisdom. If it did, why have the oversight of elders?

    RS:
    Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. 29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD.

    Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

    Ecclesiastes 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

    Like

  41. Darryl, neo-Calvinist education studies the ancients and modern atheistic scientists. I don’t get where you see that limitation in neo-Calvinism. It’s part of what common grace is all about.

    Erik, those things general speaking should be taught at home and and church. Why not at school as well? Education without those things is fragmented and compartmentalized.

    Like

  42. But Terry, if the lens of Scripture is the norm, how can non-Christians get nature right? I understand the answer is supposed to be common grace. But that sets into motion students of nature who can’t help themselves. If not for common grace, they’d be getting it all wrong. Instead, what might be important for Christians to learn is how any person studies to get it right. And when it comes to studying nature, it comes not from reading the Bible but from actually attending to the natural order.

    Like

  43. “I understand the answer is supposed to be common grace. But that sets into motion students of nature who can’t help themselves.”

    Or, from, a different angle, God doesn’t rule over men as if they are blocks of wood. The idea that Christians are thoughtful then act out those thoughts correctly but then the non-Christian just kind of bumbles into correctness despite incorrect thoughts is a scenario in which the non-Christian is treated much like a block of wood. Instead, the non-Christian has enough light to get some things right and act accordingly.

    Turretin does an interesting defense of natural law along these lines:

    …it is even most absurd that the rational creature as rational should not be subject to him [God] in the genus of morals and not be governed by him suitably to his nature (i.e., by moral means) by the establishment of a law. Hence it follows either that man ought to have been created independent by God (which is absurd) or that he has a natural law impressed upon him, in accordance with which he may be ruled by him.

    Like

  44. Darryl, I think you seem common grace too narrowly. The classic passage is the one about God letting the rain fall on both the just and the unjust. This is simply the normal operations of Creation and Providence. That God allows fallen, sinful humanity to continue to exhibit the image of God and restrain the distorting consequences of sin so that even unbelievers can see Creation aright is an act of grace. That’s what I’m talking about here. It’s no added extra empowerment. Nobody “helps themselves”; it always comes by God’s enablement. But sinners don’t deserve to live with God’s help. They deserve judgment, condemnation, and destruction. By God’s grace they don’t get that but they get rain from heaven.

    I continue to assert that our viewpoints aren’t all that different. You seem to have some baggage associated with your view of what neo-Calvinists think that I don’t really get.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.