These words ended the opening paragraph of J. Gresham Machen’s 1923 classic Christianity and Liberalism. Fighting may be defensive or it may involve attack. When today’s news media wish to portray political rhetoric or reactions in a negative light, they often say that one side or group (nearly always the conservative side) has pounced on some person, thing, or issue. An Associated Press story from 1932 shows that neither the shallow sensationalizing of “religious” news nor the pejorative use of the term “fundamentalist” is anything new. They may as well have said MACHEN POUNCES:

“Stirs Churchmen”…and the pot?

DENVER, May 30, (A.P.) … An attack on policies and government of the Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A. by one of its outstanding leaders exploded a bombshell today in the ranks of the churchmen gathered here.
The attack was made by Dr. J. Gresham Machen of Philadelphia, recognized as the guiding spirit of the church’s fundamentalist faction.
Speaking before the congregation of First Avenue Presbyterian Church in Denver yesterday, Dr. Machen said “the present condition of the Presbyterian Church is an offense against God.”
(Philadelphia Inquirer, Tues. May 31. 1932)
There’s little context to show why Machen felt put upon by a decade of liberalizing declension1 in the northern mainline church. A casual reader might have assumed Machen was just some angry crank. That a sermon preached in the run-up to a presbyterian general assembly could make national news shows how much things have changed in the USA—the mainline still seemed to run the “Christian” nation of America in 1932.
Well, Machen did feel put upon and so “put it on” the moderate-liberal elites who ran the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. You may, like us, question the advisability of (church) political sermons on the Lord’s Day, but times were different. Apparently, such things were more usual 90-100 years ago. There were “really important things” about which men were most definitely fighting. Here’s how the local paper gleefully covered the pugilistic pastor:
The chief event of Sunday, however, was the appearance of Dr. Machen in the pulpit of the First Avenue Presbyterian Church of Denver, whose pastor is Dr. Thomas Murray, Dr. Machen preached two powerful sermons. He was quoted in Monday morning’s Rocky Mountain News under the following headlines: “Presbyterian Heads Flayed by Churchman … Dr. J. Gresham Machen Fiercely Assails Attitude of Modernists … Directs Suspicion … Asserts Unfaithfulness Is Being Concealed in Reign of Secrecy … Bitter Attack on the Presbyterian Church … “ One of the paragraphs of the news Item read: “Scarcely any branch of the church’s administrative bodies escaped the withering fire of his criticism. In harsh language he assailed the actions of men high in the Councils of the Church.” The whole effect of the manner in which this story was handled was to make it appear that Dr. Machen’s message was other in spirit and content than it was. It was not bitter-unless the truth is bitter. It certainly was not harsh, but it was unpleasant to many because it brought out into public view the very dangerous condition of the Church, which many people want to ignore, ostrich-like. His words were a needful and salutary purgative. In order that the readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY may know the exact form in which quotations of Dr. Machen’s sermon were handed to the press, the text is reproduced on Page 4. It is an undeniable fact that, on Monday morning as newsboys at the door of the Auditorium shouted out “Dr. Machen makes bitter attack on Presbyterian Church,” a number of tempers went up to the boiling point.2
Major ecclesial figures sometimes called press conferences in 1932…and reporters even came. Sermon summaries were provided to the papers, and we have a friendlier and fuller picture from a publication with which Machen was associated—the “old” Christianity Today (as referenced in the above quote):
Dr. Machen’s Denver Sermon
FOR the information of my readers we are reproducing the exact text of news-summary of Dr. Machen’s sermon in the First A venue Presbyterian Church of Denver, during the recent assembly. This is the only form in which the sermon was released to the press.

Satan’s false flag operation is fueling misgivings about Biblical teaching concerning gender differences, fatherhood and motherhood, roles in marriage and male leadership in the church. (The church’s government notably has as its head a man, the man Christ Jesus, who set it up, who shed his blood for sinners in love and appoints men to shepherd the flock he loves.) Satan’s operation is a deceitful emotional appeal that can be summarized by a short and familiar formula: “God is evil, isn’t he?” But the truth is the opposite.

Last week I noticed that Ryan Gosling was nominated for an Oscar for playing Ken alongside Margot Robbie’s Barbie in last summer’s hit by the same name. Robbie, incidentally, was not so nominated. I won’t watch the film, but I recall reading that the plot features a wayward Ken promoting patriarchy, and that Barbie—won’t this help us all sleep better—rescues the world from patriarchy. It is likely that I am not the only one to detect a total public relations failure when the man gets the trophy after all.
This in turn reminded me of something I read around the time the movie came out: that the Archbishop of York of the Church of England was also worried about patriarchy, and that its troubling existence makes some understandably uncomfortable with a certain prayer that begins with the words “Our Father.”[i]
And the bishop is hardly alone. Many professing Christians sound just like Barbie and the bishop, and tell me that the church has missed something—a two-thousand-year-old fifth column called patriarchy must be rooted out of Christianity for Christianity to survive in our enlightened age.[ii] Without pulling this invasive weed, they tell me, we are doomed.
What do we make of this assessment? Is this really a noxious weed? What is patriarchy?
What is True: Decades of Bad News Concerning Bad Men
In 2002 the Boston Globe published a series of stories revealing a pattern of criminal sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. The hypocrisy caused a crisis of confidence that spread in the church worldwide, and continues to the present day—the fathers were not what they claimed to be.
American evangelicalism has not fared much better. Vision Forum promised the restoration of the Christian family through “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy;” instead its president confessed to inappropriate sexual conduct. Mr. “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” left his wife and left the faith.  Leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention faced serious allegations. To our shame the church has often looked more like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein than Job or Joseph.
My own tribe—evangelical Presbyterianism—has its own cases of the same sordid substance. This is the hypocrisy of which Jesus said: “Woe to you!” This is also the way of sinful flesh; there is nothing new under the sun, and what has been will be. Sexual desire, apart from the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit, produces all manner of wicked fruit. The lust of the flesh is destructive and evil.
But some suggest that these failures are not fundamentally rooted in individual fallen human nature but rather social structures that unequally place men in positions of influence, leading to the imbalance and abuse of power. If we solve the imbalance, so the logic goes, we will eliminate the abuse. Utopia requires the elimination of patriarchy.
What is Patriarchy?
Patriarchy simply means father-rule. The word clearly indicates an apportioning of authority. It is an uncomplicated word, used by the church for millennia. Today’s use of the word, however, appears to be confused by two things: (i) people who use it to describe unbiblical schemes (we will call this not-patriarchy) or (ii) people who think patriarchy itself is actually bad.
About not-patriarchy: The promises of I Kissed Dating Goodbye or Vision Forum or Bill Gothard should never have appealed to Christians, ever. These schemes went beyond the Law of God, lacked Gospel basics, and understated dependence on the Holy Spirit. It is no surprise that adherents later kiss Christianity goodbye. All forms of legalistic, harsh, and sinful leadership are not fatherhood but delinquency. We need to learn to recognize and reject counterfeit patriarchy.[iii]
The second concern is the unequivocal rejection of the whole thing: Patriarchy is simply very bad. Countless journalists, opinion writers and professors, the bishop and Barbie (and a growing chorus of evangelical-egalitarian influencers) are in agreement: Very, very bad.
I hear this sentiment in the Presbyterian denominations in which I travel: “Beware patriarchy,” which then is inexplicably defined as “men being unkind to women.” This particular definition often makes its appearance during discussions of abuse or sexual sin; for some this is apparently indistinguishable from patriarchy. If we were playing Clue, it was patriarchy in the church that did it. Case closed.
The net effect? Listen up, everybody: Patriarchy is a big problem. Father-rule is bad. The father is bad.
The Dangers That Follow the Loss of Patriarchy
So why even try to rescue a sullied word? Doesn’t language change? I would submit that acquiescence to the popular equation patriarchy–is-evil will result in the loss of our nation, the Christian home, the church and the Gospel. How, you ask, could this little word be so important?
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by J. V. Fesko |
Thursday, February 23, 2023
As you consider the Old Testament, do not press the narratives into the service of application apart from Christ. First consider how Christ is organically connected to the text. How does the New Testament authoritatively explain the particular Old Testament text before you? Through the light of the revelation of the gospel of Christ, you are equipped to recognize clearly Jesus in the shadowlands of the Old Testament.

In the wake of the death and resurrection of Christ, a number of Jesus’ disciples failed to receive word that their Lord and Savior had risen from the dead. Under the impression that Jesus was dead in his tomb, the disciples walked on the road to Emmaus until a visitor joined them along the way:

That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” (Luke 24:13-17)

This visitor eventually revealed himself as the risen Messiah, and Jesus began to teach them about his ministry from “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). In other words, Jesus taught his disciples exclusively from the Old Testament.
In fact, the phrase that Luke uses, the Law, Prophets, and Psalms, refers to the three major divisions of the Old Testament. Another way of stating Christ’s point is, “The whole Old Testament points to me—Jesus!” If the Old Testament is about Jesus, then how does this affect the way we read it?
The Old Testament isn’t merely about morals, ethics, or leadership.
All too often people read the Old Testament as if its narratives set forth principles merely about morals, ethics, or leadership. Moses is an example for leadership in how he led a rebellious people through the wilderness—these “life lessons” can then be applied to a host of workplace conflicts.
Read More
Related Posts: