Salvation by God at the Cross of Christ: A Reflection on Chapter 6 of Christianity and Liberalism (Part 2)
Written by K.J. Drake |
Friday, July 7, 2023
To modify the core message of the gospel in order to receive what we think of as a proper hearing will lead to unfaithfulness. There are temptations within the evangelical church to compromise at the same places where theological liberalism was found defective: the doctrine of sin, character of God, and the accomplishment of the cross. The theocentric vision of salvation cannot be substituted for a human-centered mode of self-help or moralistic pursuit.
From Machen’s intervention in this now century-old controversy (see Part 1), twenty-first century American Christians should heed his warning and avoid temptations of minimizing or modifying the concept of salvation. We should reject adjusting the atonement, sin, and our view of God to meet the tastes or fads of the day, but rather have a clear-eyed focus on sin and the cross as the core of the gospel. Likewise, the dangers of sentimentality, now in therapeutic form, must be avoided and replaced with clear theological speech. Machen’s proper ordering of the doctrine of salvation and ethics should be imitated without giving into quietism or utilitarian applications of Christian doctrine. While theological liberalism is certainly not dead and gone, few are enticed to adopt it wholesale;[1] the more persistent danger is the unwary or unwise taking steps down the path liberalism tread ignorant of its inexorable downgrade towards unfaithfulness. In this article, I will offer a few entailments of Machen’s warning for the contemporary church.
Resist Accommodation
The beginning of the road to theological liberalism came with the attempt to accommodate the concepts of Scripture to modern values. What we have received in the Word of God is meant to be the guide to faithful life under Christ and by the Spirit for all ages. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). To modify the core message of the gospel in order to receive what we think of as a proper hearing will lead to unfaithfulness. There are temptations within the evangelical church to compromise at the same places where theological liberalism was found defective: the doctrine of sin, character of God, and the accomplishment of the cross. The theocentric vision of salvation cannot be substituted for a human-centered mode of self-help or moralistic pursuit.
See Sin Rightly
As with the failure of theological liberalism, the problems of the Church in late modernity begin with a distorted view of sin, which has been detached from the holiness of God. Sin, and therefore the forgiveness of sin, has increasingly been expressed in the therapeutic register. Carl Trueman has expressed the prevailing environment as “the cultures of psychological man: the only moral criterion that can be applied to behavior is whether it conduces to the feeling of well-being in the individuals concerned. Ethics, therefore, becomes a function of feeling.”[2] On this view, sin is that which makes me or others feel bad. This therapeutic faith can be traced partially to the liberal preaching that Machen challenged in the 1920s. As a historian of the social gospel has noted, “In many ways, Fosdick epitomized a broader movement toward exploring the psychological implications of religious faith, a movement that helped to spawn the wider development of therapeutic religious models in the aftermath of World War II.”[3] Such modifications can be observed in the contemporary Church through the popularity of pop psychologists like Brené Browne and her emphasis on shame, Jordan Peterson’s Jungian-tinged emphasis on personal responsibility, or the broader shift to speak of “brokenness” to the exclusion of guilt. These trends have a truth to them, but also error.
For instance, God does address our shame, and sin does cause brokenness. However, failure to see sin in a fundamentally theocentric frame, as Machen does, papers over its severity and cost. Sin rejects God, despoils our nature, and corrupts us entirely. Sin is the antithesis of all that is good, right, and true. Sin deserves death. Sin is not limited to the “really bad stuff,” but all thoughts, words, deeds, and inclinations of the human heart against the perfect divine will. One grasps the goodness of the gospel only after the terrible verdict against sin. “The account of that work is the ‘gospel,’ the ‘good news.’ It never could have been predicted, for sin deserves naught but eternal death. But God triumphed over sin through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[4] Accounting for the multifaceted nature of sin is necessary and a helpful way of communicating the word of God to our culture, but we must not fail to speak of its fundamental revolt against the Holy God.[5] Preaching about sin must account for the whole life and bring all our collective and individual violations of the divine will to light. No room ought to be granted to “respectable sins” either of the culture or the Church.
-
Jennie Faulding Taylor and Her Team of Brave Women
Jennie’s team of female missionaries also set up centers for the elderly and a vocational school to prepare the orphaned girls to find occupations (at a time when education for women was limited in China). At the same time, Timothy Richard held regular worship services and trained the boys. The center taught the women to sew, embroider, spin wool, and braid straw. While they worked, the women were encouraged to discuss the “wordless book” first created by C. H. Spurgeon.
In 1875, a serious drought in the north of China gave way to a dreadful four-year famine, with millions of deaths and a huge migration of people. Most casualties were in the province of Shanxi (an estimated 5.5 million deaths in four years). Timothy Richard, a Welsh Baptist missionary who had opened an orphanage in the area, wrote the renowned Hudson Taylor asking for some female missionaries to run it.
Brave Women
Taylor had a reputation for sending single female missionaries at a time when the concept was largely criticized. At this time, he was in England, nursing his failing health. After discussing this with his second wife, Jennie Faulding, she offered to go while he stayed in England with their children. She left with two single women, Anna Crickmay and Celia Horne. Anna and Celia were the first unmarried western women to go as missionaries into deep inland China.
Their courage was typical of female missionaries in China. Taylor’s first wife, Maria Dyer, had fought off a group of rioters in their home by stopping the hand of a murderer, grabbing and dragging into the house a man who had tried to throw a missionary off the roof, and then jumping off a fifteen-foot-high window to save her life. All this, while being six months pregnant. About ten years earlier, she had escaped from the same window by a rope on the day before she gave birth to her first daughter.
One of her predecessors, Mary Ann Aldersey (the first single woman missionary in China), helped two girls to escape their persecuting families by smuggling them out of their country.
The stories of these strong women could make for an exciting action movie. I might describe them more carefully in other articles. Here, however, I will focus on the work of Jennie Faulding.
Moving to China
Born in 1843 in London, Jennie graduated in 1865 from the Home and Colonial Training College. Graduating with her was her inseparable friend of thirteen years, Emily Blatchley. The same year, Jennie and Emily met Hudson and Maria Dyer Taylor at a prayer meeting. Deeply moved by the Taylors’ appeal for more missionaries, the young women continued to attend their meetings. By October, Emily had moved in with the Taylors as Hudson’s secretary and governess for their children: Grace, Herbert, Frederick, and Samuel.
In 1866, Jennie and Emily joined a group of volunteers in accompanying the Taylors back to China. Emily’s parents, who didn’t profess to be believers, didn’t have any objections, while Jennie’s father, a long-time supporter of Hudson, was hard to convince. The team finally left in May the same year, on the Lammermuir.
Once the ship arrived, all the missionaries dressed in Chinese clothes (the men even wore a fake braid, with the intent of letting their hair grow). This raised outraged objections from missionaries who found their attire unnecessary and demeaning, as well as a compromise with an idolatrous culture.
But Jennie soon discovered what Hudson had believed from the start: wearing Chinese clothes fostered acceptance and removed unnecessary obstacles. “If I had on English clothes,” she said, “the [Chinese] women would at first be afraid of me and, if I succeeded in winning their confidence, my dress would be the one subject of their thoughts.”[1]
Read More
Related Posts: -
Florida Bans 54 of its School Math Textbooks for “Trying to Indoctrinate Students”: Half of the Prohibited Titles Feature Critical Race Theory
The Florida Department of Education rejected 54 math textbooks from its curriculum on Friday, saying the books were an attempt to ‘indoctrinate’ students – with more than half of them banned for referencing Critical Race Theory (CRT).
The agency tossed out 41 percent of the 132 math textbooks submitted for next year’s curriculum because they were not ‘aligned with Florida standards or included prohibited topics and unsolicited strategies,’ the DOE said in a statement on Friday.
‘Reasons for rejecting textbooks included references to Critical Race Theory (CRT), inclusions of Common Core, and the unsolicited addition of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) in mathematics,’ the department added, noting that all three learning practices are banned in the state. -
“If You had One Shot . . .” OR: Polemics About Confessions…
Among the Reformed confessions, however, particularly within what have been called “The Three Forms of Unity,” (The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort), we can find carefully reasoned articulations of biblical truth pastorally aimed at the heart in ways that still speak to the masses.
If you’re a Protestant Christian, imagine that someone you don’t know asks you to explain in one sentence (no run-ons!) why your church doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints. How would you respond? As you think it over, let’s think about the historical, theological, and present-day significance of what just happened, and what an opportunity you’ve been given.
This person has invited you to engage in polemics, the advancing of biblical doctrine against unbiblical distortions of it. And although you’d be doing it here informally, the effort to persuade someone of our Lord’s teaching is always a serious undertaking. In our radically post-Christian culture, and amidst so many revelations of abuse in the church, it’s also an extremely sensitive one. Today, the way eternal truth is presented is especially consequential, and we in Reformed circles need to be especially careful.
There can be a tendency among confessional, Reformed, orthodox Protestants to be attracted to the spirited, occasionally aggressive, sometimes personally insulting words the original Reformers launched against their Roman Catholic counterparts. But when we view the Reformers’ explosive rhetoric as justification for us to “go and do likewise” in our teaching, preaching, and online posting – whatever the topic and whomever the target – we tend to ignore the crucial differences between their circumstances and ours. Theirs was a literally life and death struggle to proclaim the gospel; those whom they opposed in writing represented an organization that condemned them to hell in official church declarations and commissioned the torture and assassination of their ministers. We should blush at imitating the Reformers’ heated polemics if we haven’t passed through such flames ourselves. And it’s not just the temperature of their historically conditioned language that should give us pause.
In our present-day efforts at theological persuasion, we should hesitate to use antiquated language and technical terminology that does not translate to our times. However much we rightly admire the linguistic styles and structures of Reformed writings from centuries past, the effort to rhetorically recreate conditions long gone actually runs afoul of the principles and practice of Reformed confessionalism. Repristination is not Reformed.
The Reformed confessions were written to carry old truth into contemporary times. They spoke with relatable language to situations the church was presently enduring.
Read More
