Written by Matthew H. Lee |
Thursday, December 7, 2023

For Machen, the great benefit of these school choice reforms was that they would empower parents to oversee their children’s education. As he stated to the Sentinels, the hope is that “we may return to the principle of freedom for individual parents in the education of their children in accordance with their conscience.” School choice policies enacted and expanded this year promote this noble end and serve as an unexpected tribute to Machen on the hundredth anniversary of Christianity and Liberalism.

This year is the centennial of J. Gresham Machen’s magnum opus, Christianity and Liberalism.
Originally published in 1923, Machen wrote the book in response to a rising tide of theological liberalism and modernism in the United States. Machen’s views ultimately led him out of his denomination and out of Princeton Seminary, both of which accepted more liberal and modernist tendencies, and led him to help found two enduring institutions—Westminster Theological Seminary (1929) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936).
While Machen’s achievements are chiefly theological, he wrote and spoke extensively about education, where he observed some of the deteriorating effects of liberalism. One hundred years of policy and research have proven Machen prescient in his views on education policy, which can largely be grouped into three themes: resistance against standardization, opposition to centralization, and insistence on parental choice.
Resistance Against Standardization
First, Machen resisted trends to standardize both the teaching profession and student learning. The Lusk Laws in New York, for example, required teachers to obtain certification from the commissioner of education and made them subject to state visitation. Though repealed in 1923, less than two years after they passed, the spirit of the Lusk Laws endures. Nearly every state requires teachers to obtain some certification, often in addition to holding a degree in the field of education, despite the fact that research fails to document evidence of a meaningful link between certification and teacher quality.
Machen believed the modernist trend of training teachers in the science of education, rather than with content in their disciplines, marked a fundamental shift in the understanding of what teaching is. He lamented that the primary preparation of modern teachers was not “to study the subject that he is going to teach. Instead of studying the subject that he is going to teach, he studies ‘education.’”
In Machen’s view, the great danger in standardization and in emphasizing methodology over content is that it would place the child “under the control of psychological experts, themselves without the slightest acquaintance with the higher realms of human life, who proceed to prevent any such acquaintance being gained by those who come under their care.”
Treating education as a mechanistic process would result in “intellectual as well as moral decline” because in such a context, morality is based “upon experience, instead of upon an absolute distinction between right and wrong,” Machen said in a 1926 address to the Sentinels of the Republic, a libertarian organization dedicated to resisting federal overreach.
To compensate for the meagerness of character formation in modern education, psychological experts instead try to inject civic and moral values into a standardized, secularized curriculum. Machen wrote about such “morality codes” in a 1925 essay titled “Reforming the Government Schools.” He observed that these codes were “making the situation tenfold worse; far from checking the ravages of immorality, they are for the most part themselves non-moral at the root.” Today, morality codes have many faces, but the same empty core. Social and emotional learning (SEL), for example, provides analogs for cardinal virtues promoted by classical and Christian education, but absent the thick moral context of religion.
Opposition to Centralization
Machen was also opposed to the centralization of oversight of education in the federal government, a natural extension of his resistance to standardization. In February 1926, a month after his Sentinels address, Machen provided expert testimony on behalf of the Sentinels for a Congressional hearing dealing with several issues, including the formation of a federal Department of Education, which he predicted that if enacted, would be “the worst fate into which any country can fall.” While he helped defeat the proposal for a federal department, his victory was merely temporary, as a federal department of education would eventually be formed as a cabinet-level department in 1980.
Machen was not being hyperbolic in his assessment. Since the establishment of the first federal agency in 1867, which started with only a commissioner and a staff of three, the federal role in education has ballooned. For 2023–24, the Department of Education budgeted over $270 billion in spending—all the more alarming when one considers that the Department of Education accounts for only three-fifths of all federal spending on education. Again, Machen has been vindicated by research, which has failed to document a reliable link between spending and student outcomes.
A common argument for centralized control over education, both in Machen’s day and today, is easily addressed.
Read More
Related Posts:

Other than prayer, the best way Old School Confessionalists can support the agencies of the PCA at this time is by searching for more men who share a commitment to robust, Old School Presbyterianism who will be willing to serve on the permanent committees to help shape the policies and priorities of the College, the Seminary, MTW, MNA, etc. It’s not enough to serve on a General Assembly CofC! Instead of neglecting the Agencies of the PCA, let’s be willing to serve them on the permanent committees.

The PCA is comprised largely of three groups. In 2015, TE Bryan Chapell described these groups as “traditionalists, progressives, and neutrals.” I don’t like the label he chose for my segment of the PCA; I prefer the label “Old School” or “Confessionalist.”
By the way, I don’t think anybody likes the label he chose for their group, but – as I have written elsewhere – the unified dislike of the three labels suggests TE Chapell was at least over the target.
Regardless of what label is proffered, there are largely three groups who are united together in the Presbyterian Church in America. The two groups on each end of the spectrum both profess a love for the PCA, but their interests in the PCA are shaped by different concerns.
Love for the PCA

But there are others in the PCA who are drawn to the PCA not necessarily because of her robust Westministerian theology and her historic polity. They are eager to see how the PCA with her institutions and cultural cachet can influence society to restore people, places, and things. Their love for the PCA seems more centered on the PCA’s Agencies and Institutions and what the PCA represents for the culture. Their love for the PCA is exhibited especially in an unflinching and enthusiastic support for the PCA’s College and Seminary because of the opportunities for witness and cultural engagement that are afforded to the PCA through the institutions brought in to the PCA with the RPCES. Likewise, this segment of the PCA seems excited about the possibility of planting 120 churches a year until 2030 and are therefore wholeheartedly committed to MNA’s models, assessments, initiatives, and programs.
This is not to say the “traditionalists” are not motivated for evangelism or that those on the other side are not committed to the essentials of the Reformed Faith. The “traditionalists,” however, have been rather lackluster regarding enthusiasm for the institutions brought in with the RPCES as well as the other Agencies of the PCA. Their attention is to doctrine and the slow, but steady growth from discipleship in the ordinary means of grace.
A Pointed Critique of the PCA’s Agencies
On a recent episode of the Westminster Standard Podcast (WS Pod), we discussed the change that has taken place in the PCA since 2018 and the role of blogs and podcasts in that transformation.
In 2018, the National Partnership reflected on the success they had enjoyed in shifting the trajectory of the denomination. But six years later, former members of the now defunct partnership are decrying the General Assembly as “broken” and others share their disappointment with the PCA’s renewed commitments expressed in confessional fidelity and clarity.
In the episode, one of the guest commentators relayed some anecdotes shared with him based on experiences church members had with a couple of specific PCA Agencies (i.e. Covenant College and RUF) as well as his own perception of a Covenant College promotional video.
He pointedly expressed concern that some of the PCA agencies were failing to disciple men in particular, but instead accommodating cultural values he viewed as having diverged from historic Christian emphases.
At least one employee of the College has understandably expressed strenuous objection to the guest commentator’s critique. I note several things in this regard.
First, the opinions and views expressed on the WS Pod are not necessarily those of Jude 3 & the PCA, First Presbyterian Church, the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, or the PCA, but only those of the individual speaker who offers a particular opinion or viewpoint.
Read More
Related Posts:

God may be accomplishing many things through our times of difficulty. He may be shifting our gaze from earth to heaven and causing us to have a greater longing for his presence. He may be refining our hearts and increasing our faith. He may be using our trials to bless and encourage others or to set an example they can follow. He may be making use of our suffering to show the world around us that our love for him is deep, real, and lasting and that we will love him in the darkness as much as we claim in the light.

It is amazing what struggles people will endure when they do so for a purpose they believe in. It is amazing what struggles people will deliberately bring upon themselves when they believe such struggles are the means to a desirable end. Athletes endure endless hours of training, excruciating times of preparation, and the pain of pushing themselves to the very edge of their endurance. And they do it all for the glory of a trophy, medal, or personal best. Students endure long hours, late nights, and difficult exams when they believe that their studies will eventually lead to a comfortable and fulfilling career. Women endure the struggles of pregnancy, the pains of labor, and the midnight feedings all for the joy of being a mother to a child.
But what of the trials we do not choose for ourselves, the trials that are thrust upon us without our desire and without our consent? What of the trials that do not lead to achieving a goal or attaining a sense of fulfillment? What of the trials that arise from without instead of within, from the mysteries of God’s providence rather than the longing of our hearts?
In such times, it is a tremendous blessing for Christians to consider why God has created us and why God has called us to live in this world. The chief end of man, the Catechism says sublimely, is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Read More
Related Posts: