J.Gresham Machen
& "True Science" Machen's Apologetical Continuity With Old
Princeton's Right Use of Reason by Paul K. Helseth, edited http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/pkhmachen.htm
[The
Machen was convinced that there
was no greater problem
facing the modern church than the relationship
between Christianity and culture. His answer and solution is clearly
articulated in an address that was originally delivered to the Philadelphia
Ministers' Association in the fall of 1912. The address was originally intended
to be a defense of scientific theological study, and initially entitled
"Scientific Preparation of the Minister," but published later under
the heading Christianity and Culture.
"Christianity
and Culture" is Machen's first published work on
the problem of the relationship between knowledge and piety, or, culture and
Christianity. He argues that the true solution to the problem is to be found in
the consecration rather than the destruction or accommodation of modern
culture. Christians must consecrate modern culture to Christianity because they
must "mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the
acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity." In an
article entitled "Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith"
(1932), a similar statement refers not
to the goal of the task of consecration but rather to the goal of Christian apologetics. Machen
asserts that apologetics is useful "most of all in producing an intellectual
atmosphere in which the acceptance of the gospel will seem to be something
other than an offence against truth."
Apologetics for
Machen was a decidedly offensive enterprise. He did
apologetics not because he was
convinced that faith needs answers to the objections of modern critics, but
because he recognized that "False ideas are the greatest obstacle to
the reception of the gospel," and that answers to the objections of
modern critics are consequently needed for "faith of a biblical
sort."
Machen argued that the problem
of the relationship between Christianity and culture may be settled in one of three ways: first by stating
Christian belief in modern terms through the accommodation of Christianity
to modern culture and the conclusions of modern science. This solution is based
upon the presumption that the Christian religion is simply a mystical or moral
rather than a supernatural historical phenomenon.
The second solution to the
problem of the relationship between Christianity and culture goes to the
opposite extreme. While the "Worldly Solution" seeks to preserve the
Christian religion by subordinating it to modern culture and the conclusions
of modern science, the "Obscurantist Solution" seeks to save the
Christian religion from the devastating conclusions of modern scholarship by
"withdrawing into a sort of unhealthy, modernized, intellectual
monastery." "Some men in the Church are inclined to choose a simple
way out of the difficulty," "they are inclined to reject the whole of
modern culture as either evil or worthless; this wisdom of the world, they maintain,
must be deserted for the divine "'foolishness' of the gospel." Advocates of this solution conclude
that "the culture of this world must be a matter at least of indifference
to the Christian." While the Christian must live in and be a part of human
culture, they regard this participation "as a necessary evil - a dangerous
and unworthy task necessary to be gone through with under a stern sense of duty
in order."
Machen was convinced that these solutions pose a serious threat
to the enduring relevance and viability of the Christian religion. They are
based upon the explicit or implicit endorsement of philosophical assumptions
that undermine the integrity of the gospel by encouraging the accommodation
of Christianity to the "epistemological error" of the modern era, the
notion that there is discontinuity (even antagonism) between the
epistemological realms of religion and science. Advocates of these solutions, in their accommodation of a
naturalistic view of the universe, insisted that the Christian religion can
be preserved in the modern era only "by divorcing it from science."
They argued that the Christian religion is not based upon the rational
appropriation of something that is considered to be objectively true. It is
based, rather, upon an ineffable mystical or moral experience that is
the natural manifestation of the universal human effort to "tap" into
and thereby order life according to the vital moral force that pervades and
actuates world processes. Religion is simply that individual or corporate
effort to live in accord with those values of love and good will that the
Ultimate Reality has woven into the processes of the cosmos. Religion and
science occupy autonomous epistemological realms. Religion "may hold to a
realm of religious and ethical ideals; but science must be given the entire
realm of facts." The threat posed
by these solutions to the problem of the relationship between Christianity
and culture is in this abandonment to science of "the whole realm
of objective truth."
Machen insisted that these
solutions are unacceptable precisely because they are ultimately unable to
satisfy the religious needs of fallen sinners. Nothing but something that
is objectively true can meet the supernatural needs of the sinful soul.
Objective truth is abandoned by "the epistemological By-Path Meadow which
is found in the separation of religion from science." He was convinced
that all truth is
ultimately one and concluded that the conflict between Christianity and
culture will be settled not by "destroying one or the other of the
contending forces," but rather by "transforming the unwieldy,
resisting mass of human thought until it becomes subservient to the gospel."
"Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the
world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of
modernized intellectual monasticism," Machen
insisted that Christians must "go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make
the world subject to God."
How are
Christian scholars to make the world subject to God, to move the
Christians must
pursue the consecration rather than the destruction or accommodation of
modern culture. The "true solution" to the problem of the
relationship between Christianity and culture is to be found in the subjugation
of modern culture to Christian truth. Two factors make the consecration of modern
culture necessary. The first,
saving faith is based upon the rational appropriation of objective truth
rather than upon the ineffable religious experience of a fallen moral agent.
The experience of regeneration is essential. "What the Holy Spirit does in
the new birth is not to make a man a Christian regardless of the evidence, but
on the contrary to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend
to the evidence." The Spirit enables the moral agent to attend to the
"thoroughly reasonable" foundations of the Christian religion. Since
saving faith is "always a conscious condition of the soul"
that is logically based upon a movement of the mind, it follows that the
need for consecration is related to the fact that "A man can believe
only what he holds to be true." "It is impossible to hold on with
the heart to something that one has rejected with the head. All the usefulness
of Christianity can never lead us to be Christians unless the Christian
religion is true."
While the first
factor has to do with the logical priority of the intellect in faith,
the second has to
do with what Machen considered to be the primary obstacle to the advancement of
the
Faith is
based upon a conviction of the objective truth or trustworthiness of what is
rationally perceived.
Yet faith for many is impossible because their thinking is controlled by ideas
that make acceptance of the gospel "logically impossible."
Consecration rather than destruction or accommodation of modern culture is
necessary for two reasons.
It is necessary not only because the Christian religion "must justify its
place in the world of facts," but because this justification (creation
of "those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel)"
is really necessary for the "external advancement" of the
Machen's solution repudiates the
naturalism of the age by insisting that saving faith is grounded in the rational appropriation of objective truth
rather than the ineffable religious experience of a fallen moral agent. The
task of consecration is not a merely rationalistic enterprise, but rather an
enterprise that recognizes the import of the subjective and the centrality of
experience in religious epistemology. This recognition is manifest in Machen's insistence that the task of consecration is based
upon and appeals to "true science." Science ought not be defined in a
manner that artificially limits or narrows the scope of what is regarded as
"fact" to the conclusions of "those methods of research that
operate merely with the doctrine of "physical causation (in a manner that
endorses the separation of the epistemological realms of religion and
science)." It ought to be defined in a manner that is "true"
because it recognizes that the sphere in which science moves is broad enough to
include even the knowledge of God that He has given of Himself "in nature
and in His Word."
What determines
how broadly or narrowly science is defined, whether the science of the
consecrating scholar "is really scientific or not"? Machen was convinced that the soul is a single unit whose
unitary activity is certainly determined by that which "lies far deeper
than individual actions," the moral character or personality of the
"whole man." There "is no such thing as the will,
considered as a separate something-or-other inside of a man. The will is
just the whole man willing, as the intellect is the whole man thinking
and the feelings is the whole man
feeling." Science is a form of human activity that is engaged in by the
"whole man" and thus conditioned by the moral character of the
"whole man". While all science rests on presuppositions that are
determined by the perception and conception of the intellect, the perception
and conception of the intellect is itself conditioned by the moral character of
the "whole man." The breadth and quality of scientific
investigation are ultimately determined by the moral character or personality
of the investigating agent.
Adam was
created in the image of God and thus "was like God not only in that he was
a person but also in that he was good." His likeness to God did not
consist merely in a capacity for personal freedom, but "it also means that
there was a moral likeness between man and God." It was this moral
likeness, however, that Adam lost for himself and for his posterity by his
first act of disobedience, for it was in response to his violation of the
covenant of works that "God withdrew His favor" and the souls of
"all mankind became spiritually dead" and fell "into an estate
of sin and misery." As a consequence, Adam and all those descended from
Adam not only lost communion with God, but they also forfeited the ability to
be "truly scientific." Why does spiritual death prohibit a moral
agent from having the ability to be "truly scientific"? The answer
gets to the heart of the relationship
between moral character and the presuppositions that condition scientific
investigation. The power of sin precludes the possibility of "true science
for the same reason that it precludes the possibility of "true
religion." It corrupts the moral nature of the investigating agent
and thus renders "a sound metaphysic" impossible.
How is the
science of the fallen sinner to be made a truthful thing? The answer explains
the experiential foundation of the task of consecration. The presuppositions
that condition scientific investigation are themselves the manifestation of an
intellectual operation that is conditioned by the moral character or
personality of the "whole man." The science of the fallen sinner
can be made a truthful thing only through the "regenerating power of the
Spirit of God." It is the regenerating power of the Spirit of God that
makes the intellect a "trustworthy instrument for apprehending
truth." The experience of regeneration is at the very foundation of the
task of consecration simply because it is that "moral awakening of a
soul dead in sin" that makes fallen sinners "better
philosophers" or scientists by enabling them "to see clearly where
formerly their eyes were darkened." "What the new birth does is not to
absolve men from being scientific in their defense of the faith, but rather to
enable them to be truly scientific because a veil has been taken from their
eyes."
Two observations regarding the
relationship between "better philosophy," better science, and the
task of consecration. First,
modern interpreters will never
understand how "better philosophy" and better science are related if
they forget that the veil that lies before the eyes of the fallen sinner's mind
is moral rather than merely rational. The philosophical or metaphysical presuppositions
that inform the breadth and quality of scientific investigation reflect the
moral character of the "whole man" rather than the intellectual
capacity of the rational faculty alone simply because it is the moral character
of the "whole man" that conditions the perception and thereby the
conception of the intellect. The unregenerate
do not have the ability to be "truly scientific" not merely because
of rational weakness, but rather because of moral weakness. The unregenerate do
not have the moral ability to see God for who he objectively is, and as a
consequence they do not have the moral ability to take account of "all of
the facts" that impinge upon the integrity of the gospel message.
Second, what does the better science of the consecrating scholar
look like? How is the science of the consecrating scholar different from the
science of the non-Christian scholar? For Machen the
science of those who are possessed of "a sound epistemology" (the
regenerate) is different from the science of those who are epistemologically
challenged (the unregenerate) not
because the science of the regenerate is a type of science that only the
regenerate can practice. The science of the regenerate is different because it
is more "comprehensive" and therefore more forceful than the science
of those who, because of spiritual blindness, have yet to attain to "a
sound metaphysic."
If the task of
consecration appeals to Christian experience because it includes an adjuration
to "true science, the attempt to extend the Kingdom not by asking fallen sinners "to regard science and philosophy
as without bearing upon religion. On the contrary, it asks them to become more
scientific and more philosophic through attention to all, instead of to some,
of the facts."
One of the
primary responsibilities of the modern Church lies in the task of transforming
modern culture until it becomes subservient to the gospel. "Argument alone
is quite insufficient to make a man a Christian. If the really decisive factor
in the production of Christian conviction is the regenerating activity of the
Holy Spirit, does it follow that the intellectual labor of the consecrating
scholar is unnecessary? The insufficiency of the "external
proofs" of the Christian religion to produce faith "is due not at all
to any weakness of their own but only to a weakness in our minds." The
consecrating scholar can induce an "intellectual" or
"theoretical" conviction of the truth of the Christian religion by
presenting the historical and philosophical proofs for its trustworthiness. But
a "full" or "moral" or "saving" conviction cannot
be attained without the regenerating activity of the Holy Spirit not because the arguments of the
consecrating scholar lack objective sufficiency, but because the veil that lies
before the eyes of the fallen sinner's mind prohibits the apprehension of that
sufficiency. The work of the Spirit is of critical importance not because it makes fallen sinners
Christians regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary because it removes
the veil from the eyes of their minds and enables them to attend to the
evidence. It enables them to see that the "probable" conclusions of
the consecrating scholar, which establish the integrity of the gospel and thereby
"prepare" for the "gracious coming" of the Spirit, are
indeed true and therefore trustworthy.
How does the
regenerating activity of the Holy Spirit remove the veil from the eyes of the
fallen sinner's mind, and how does the Spirit thereby confirm that the gospel
message is both true and trustworthy? The Spirit accomplishes both of these
ends by bringing fallen sinners into contact with the law of God and thereby enabling them to take "a truly
scientific attitude towards the evidence." Through the law, grounded in
the moral perfection of God, the Spirit enlightens the eyes of the fallen
sinner's mind to the perfect righteousness of God and thereby convicts him of
"the guilt and misery of man in his sin." It is this illumination of
the mind to "the facts of the inner life of man" that enables the
fallen sinner to "really lay hold upon the central message in the
Bible." It is the "sense of need" occasioned by the revelation
of the majesty of the transcendent God that suddenly makes "the words of
Scripture glow with a heavenly light and burn in the hearts of men."
Why does the
work of the Spirit foster the external advancement of the
The work of the
Spirit fosters the external advancement of the