Failing To See The Log In One's Own Eye

Apparently there is a struggle going on in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). That denomination is a conservative Presbyterian denomination that holds to Christianity's fundamental beliefs as identified by past conservative scholars like J. Gresham Machen. Only the PCA understands those fundamental beliefs within a Reformed Theological context provided by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the conservative Presbyterian standards such as the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. But that is not all, the PCA has also been described as a 'big tent' denomination that includes others who are not as well trained in those traditions. 

And so when one adds to the mix calls from those inside the denomination to update how the denomination should respond to new cultural perspectives and societal challenges, if not a perfect storm, then a very good size one is brewing in the denomination. A traditionalist perspective of the rumblings in the denomination has been reported in the Reformation21.org blog (click here for the article). The battle within the denomination appears to be between Reformed Theology traditionalists vs. Progressive Christianity.

Dr. Harry Reeder (click here for a bio), a minister at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama wrote an article about the struggles in the PCA (click here for the article). The article is important to read even though it has some glaring faults such as a failure to provide both clear definitions of at least one key term and a sound logical argument. The article, however, is important to read because it provides a perspective on how Christian traditionalists are attempting to address some of today's problems.

Reeder's partial solution to the problems within the PCA involves distributing J Gresham Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism. a book that helped provide a clear distinction between conservative Christianity and the theological liberalism of the day. Reeder holds Machen up as a theological hero because of his resistance to compromise the Christian Faith with the then modern demands of the time and cultures of his own time. At the forefront of those demands was the then scientific approach to the Scriptures and the Christian Faith--a point that is under appreciated by Reeder's article.

Reeder attacks Progressive Christianity as being willing to compromise some foundational beliefs for the sake of cultural relevancy. And so when Reeder distributes and promotes Machen's book to counter the influence of various progressives in the denomination, as demonstrated in the title, he is contrasting what he calls 'Biblical Christianity' with a Progressive Christianity, with the latter seeming all to be too eager to be relevant to the culture.

Now we could go through the article and show why it needs to provide a least one well-defined term and sound logic, but there is another point to make. That point is that, all too often, my fellow Christian traditionalists are blind to how cultural influences that modified the views of their theological and religious heroes. And here we will take J. Gresham Machen as the key example.

Perhaps Reeder is not aware or perhaps he forgot that Machen exhibited significant personal racial prejudices against Blacks. Dr. R. Scott sadly and honestly acknowledged the presence of those racial prejudices in Machen and attributed them to the cultures in which Machen lived (click here for Clark's article). Here we must remember that Machen grew up and lived during the Jim Crow era. In addition, according to Clark, Machen grew up in the South and was raised in a family that was economically privileged. Now the point in saying that is that Machen's views of Blacks and integration, the latter being an important cause so some workers for social justice, were more influenced by some of the cultures of his day than by the Scriptures.

Jemar Tisby, in his book The Color Of Compromise, lists some similar influences on Edwards which Machen experienced which influenced Edwards into not only accepting the American slavery during his life, but he owned slaves as well. This is another example in which a conserative theological hero, whose beliefs would be described as well-representing Biblical Christianity, was  more influenced by the culture of his time than by the Scriptures.

BTW, what did Machen say that was so racist? Using archives of Machen's writings from Westminster Theological Seminary, Timothy Isaiah Cho reported the contents of letters Machen wrote to his mother about both attempts to integrate Princeton Seminary dorms and those who promoted that integration (click here and there). One can read those article to see what Machen wrote. What he did write was strongly racist.

Having noted Machen's racism, what else did Machen say or even teach that was influenced by the cultures in which he lived? Was it his political leaning to libertarianism. That certainly colored some of his perspectives. And we might ask the same of those who wrote standards of the Reformed  denominations.

But pertaining to the article that is being partially reviewed here, we find that the Progressives in the PCA are not the only ones who have been more influenced by culture and are trying to appease it. Apparently the problem is that all Christians are vulnerable to and suffer from time to time. Thus Reeder's contrast between Progressive Christianity and those theologians whom Reeder portrays as representing Biblical Christianity is not as great as Reeder supposes. And, just perhaps, in Reeder's apparent total rejection of those Progressives and their causes, Reeder too is trying to appease at least the cultures in which he resides.

References

1. https://gospelreformation.net/historic-biblical-christianity-contemporary-progressive-christianity/
2. https://harryreeder.wordpress.com/about/
3. https://timothyisaiahcho.medium.com/j-gresham-machen-warfields-views-are-black-republicanism-f44fa49c7bff
4. https://threader.app/thread/1037419431108829184
5. https://theaquilareport.com/machens-letter-to-his-mother-or-what-to-do-with-dead-sinners/
6. https://heidelblog.net/2018/09/machens-letter-to-his-mother-or-what-to-do-with-dead-sinners/
7. https://faithfullymagazine.com/tale-of-two-machens/
8. 
   

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 5, 2018

August 31

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how our reliance on technology is hurting who we are as people. This appeared in Heidelblog.

We should note that it isn't just our gadgets that undermine how we value work, so does our economic system. It is those with wealth who are recognized as the sole owners of business, not those whose labor has built that wealth. And what follows is that power follows wealth, it doesn't follow work. Those who work are regarded and treated as being disposable objects by those with wealth. And even our political system shows that it exists to serve wealth rather than the people as a whole (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader ). It seems that we have an indirect democracy at best. Our elected officials are there to represent the wealthy while we are left to depend on the pleasure of the wealthy for our existence.

Now the above is not as unrelated to the gist of the above article as some might think. For the results of our society's unconditional embracing of gadgets is correctly described as weakening our work ethic. But we need to realize that our over use of gadgets is the second attack on the value of work in our society, not the first.

In addition, the above article is more than correct in asserting that our uncritical use of gadgets weakens not just our work ethic, but many of our other human characteristics. It does so by how we relate to each other as well as how we relate to ourselves. Our passionate acceptance of gadgets shows that things have grown to be more important to us than people, just as our love of profits have been so regarded.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citation from Machen’s message on fighting the good fight. Clark called his blogpost: Machen Was Not Nice. That suggests a defense for when Christians are not nice in how they discuss religion. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Link to message quoted in Clark’s article:
    http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/machen/good-fight-of-faith.html

With the title Machen Was Not Nice, one wonders if Clark is bragging or complaining. The answer to that is found is his prolific use of the word 'fight.' According to Clark, Machen talks about how Paul fought against paganism as well as human pride that came from the Judaizers. Clark's citing of Machen's use of the word fight is meant to imply that Paul was aggressive and antagonistic to the people whose positions he opposed.

Machen goes on, as cited by Clark, to urge students to fight against personal sins of both themselves and others. But the word 'fight' in all of Machen's message is partially ambiguous. While the word does mean that we must strongly oppose certain things, it doesn't imply that all opposition must include being personally combative against others.

What is odd is that while Machen talks about the necessity of fighting the good fight and warns against being tolerant of the wrong things, Clark summarizes Machen's message by saying Machen was not nice. Here, we must first find some fault with Machen. For when he cites Paul's examples, he forgets that none of us are Paul. So we need to be careful in how we follow his examples of speaking harshly against others.

A possible fault with Machen, which Clark neglects to mention, is the context from which Machen spoke. Machen had a very combative relationship with higher-ups in the United Presbyterian Church. Here, we must consider whether Machen's necessary stands for truth were at least somewhat tainted by the antagonism he faced. Here, Machen's possible fault concerns whether the personal antagonism Machen faced in his battles with denominational authorities at least partially rubbed off on him.

If one accesses the link to Machen's message, one reads about how Machen also warned fellow Christians against accepting half-truths. And perhaps by selectively quoting Machen and titling his blogpost Machen Was Not Nice, Clark himself is promoting a half-truth. That half-truth consists of correctly opposing false doctrines and challenges to God's Truth while neglecting what Paul said about the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. For the fruit of the Spirit includes: 'love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,' ... To neglect that other truth could result in our defense of God's truths could becoming more based on our sinful flesh than from God's Spirit working in us. Such would be ironic unless one remembers that we are sinners who are saved only by God's grace.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 4

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost on protecting currency and the moral aspects of money. This appeared in the Acton blog.

When we look at what Copernicus listed as the four scourges of any kingdom or nation, one would think that he has the cart before the horse. For none of his scourges include the abuse or neglect of others which would suggest that he either doesn't care about those who are abused or neglected or that abuse and neglect follow those scourges. The former seems to be the most likely reason since Copernicus's first concern is the undermining of the state--note also that he listed dissension as a scourge. Copernicus's main concern here is the maintaining of authority or of power in the status quo. And then Walker adds that Aquinas follows Copernicus in terms of his view that the 'debasement' of money is one of the 4 scourges that exist in a kingdom or nation.

Thus the above sets the tone for the whole article. Money must be protected while people can be relegated to a second class status.

In addition, there is no questioning as to whether the wealth of an individual was fairly obtained. For example, did James Madison's wealth belong exclusively to himself even though a significant amount of that wealth was obtained through the exploitation of others? If the answer to that question is no, then does the government have the right to readdress the initial distribution of wealth? Or what if a person's wealth was gained through the help of others, such as through the provision of infrastructure by the government or the participation of those in society? Does the government have a right to part of that wealth in order to pay for the services it has provided or to redistribute to those who participated in the garnering of that wealth? And what about those in need? Should either the government or the person of wealth be allowed to ignore the vulnerable who are suffering?

In all of this writing about wealth and the scourges of a nation listed and described in the article above, what the Bible says about the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil was never mentioned. The reason for that omission could be that Walker forgot what Martin Luther King, Jr. said about racism and the other sourges of society:

 I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.