J. Gresham Machen: The power of theological reflection

Trinity Journal, Fall 2001 by Moore, William G

I. INTRODUCTION

The life of John Gresham Machen has been well-chronicled and much debated.' Machen was born on July 28, 1881, into a family noted for its strong Presbyterian heritage. Born and reared in Baltimore, he enjoyed the privileges of belonging to a moderately prosperous family known for devout Christianity and a high level of cultural and social standing. The Bible, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and a wide variety of books were staples in the Machen household?

An excellent student, Machen attended a private school which emphasized a strong classical education. He continued his classical studies at Johns Hopkins University, graduating as class valedictorian in 1901. After a year of graduate study at Johns Hopkins and a summer studying banking and international law at the University of Chicago, he entered Princeton Theological Seminary after much soul-searching. Following graduation from Princeton in 1905, Machen studied for a year in Germany at Marburg and Gottingen, returning to Princeton as an instructor in 1906.3

Much of the remainder of Machen's distinguished life, during which Princeton passed from the confessional Calvinism upon which it had been founded to a more pragmatic view of both theology and curriculum, was characterized by controversy as he sought to defend Reformed orthodoxy against the encroachments of liberalism. When the Presbyterian Church reorganized Princeton in 1929, Machen and other faculty members resigned to establish Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Concern about a drift toward liberalism among Presbyterian missionaries led Machen to establish the Independent Board for Presbyterian Missions in 1933. Because he refused the directive by the New Brunswick Presbytery to leave the Board, he was suspended from the ministry. Consequently, he led in the establishment of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church on June 11, 1936. He died while on a preaching tour in North Dakota on January 1, 1937.4

Among questions which arise concerning Machen is this: Why was Machen's academic career so involved in controversial issues which would lead to separation from an esteemed institution of theological education, from an established missions organization, and from an historic denomination? The widespread and enduring influence of Machen requires an attempt to answer the question. If Machen was merely a product of or a reaction to his culture, those who see in him characteristics worthy of emulation should reassess the propriety of holding forth such an individual as a positive model. On the other hand, if Machen's views and actions resulted from enduring biblical principles, then those who adhere to such principles would be vindicated in pointing to Machen as an example of principled leadership.5

In The Presbyterian Controversy,6 Bradley Longfield attributes Machen's views and actions largely to his culture. Longfield writes skillfully, documents copiously, and gives attention to Machen's theological convictions. He builds his thesis, however, on assumptions concerning Scottish Common Sense Realism and Machen's Southern heritage that defy documentation. He sees Machen's actions as the product of the virtually subconscious psychological force of the theologian's Southernness on the one hand and the uncritical acceptance of the philosophical foundation of Common Sense Realism on the other. A person of Machen's intellectual training deserves to be seen as acting much more from a platform of critical self-consciousness than Longfield allows. This article will argue that Machen's actions arose from a philosophical framework and theological conviction built upon careful, scholarly exegesis of the biblical text. A large portion of the argument is built upon the book reviews which Machen wrote throughout his career at Princeton which appeared in the Princeton Theological Review? These reviews, as well as Machen's other writings, reveal a consistent engagement of the theological culture and a continuous reflection on that culture from the Reformed tradition.8

II. LONGFIELD'S THESIS

Longfield maintains that two interrelated factors account for Machen's aspersion to compromise and proclivity toward separation. The first factor is the influence of Machen's Southern roots. As indicated above, Machen was born and reared in Baltimore. Both of his parents were Southerners, with his mother being from the deep South. His father Arthur had started attending the Franklin Street Presbyterian Church in Baltimore in 1863, the pastor of which staunchly supported the Confederacy during the War Between the States. In addition, Arthur Machen had, in 1861, declined an appointment to serve as District Attorney for Maryland because he would have had to prosecute those who openly supported the Southern cause. Gresham's mother Mary, a native of Macon, Georgia, was firmly entrenched in the Old School Calvinism of the Southern Presbyterian Church.9

Longfield points to the influence of James Henley Thornwell upon the Southern Presbyterian Church and, by extension, on Machen through the influence of his mother. Thornwell is seen as one, if not the, major factor preventing New School theology from making much headway in the South. Thornwell's theology, Longfield notes, was grounded in the philosophical system known as Scottish Common Sense Realism. One discovers truth through observation and induction. Just as scientific truths could be discovered and organized, so could theological truths. Truth discovered must be proclaimed and defended; speculation could not be tolerated. If others refuse to accept self-evident truth, then one must be patient in attempting to persuade them in the hope that future reasoning might be successful. As a last result, however, separation would be justified.10