Gresham Machen never married. Apparently, this is the reason:
“Machen did have a brief romance with Mildred B. Stearns that blossomed in the summer of 1920. He met her at Seal Harbor, where she also vacationed with her family. The major obstacle to their marriage was religion. Stearns was Unitarian…Machen corresponded with her throughout his life and visited her whenever in Boston. Members of Machen’s family say she traveled alone from Boston to Baltimore to attend Machen’s burial service at Greenmount Cemetery,” D. Hart, Defending the Faith (P&R 2003), 130.
“There was however one real romance in his life, though unhappily it was not destined to blossom into marriage…He identified the lady by name, as a resident of Boston, and as ‘intelligent, beautiful, exquisite.’ He further stated that apparently they were utterly devoted to each other for a time, but that the devotion never developed into an engagement to be married because she was a Unitarian. [She] made a real effort to believe, but could not bring her mind and heart to the point where she could share his faith,” N. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen (Banner of Truth 1987), 318.
Evidently, Machen found himself in a dilemma which some other men have also confronted throughout the centuries: What if the right woman is the wrong woman?
(No doubt some woman have confronted the same dilemma in reverse.)
Of course, Machen could have married another woman. But maybe he felt that would be unfair to his wife. It’s wrong to live with one woman, but long for another.
That’s one of the ways in which the cost of discipleship may manifest itself. In a conflict between love and duty, he put duty above love.
But while he suffered a profound deprivation, it wasn’t a total loss by any means. He met the love of his life. He never got over her. And, evidently, the feeling was mutual.
He knew what it was like to fall in love, be in love, and stay in love. Many men and women have settled for less.
So even in a fallen world, there may, by God’s grace, be rainbows after the storm. Things which make life both bearable and enjoyable, despite the hardships and heartaches here-below. Machen and Stearns were star-crossed lovers. Yet their lives were enriched by that stellar conjunction–when their stars aligned in the summer sky.
With all due respect to Machen (and I have a great deal of respect for him), I have some thoughts that I think other fellow believers would echo.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this blog, I wonder if Machen met her before he was a Christian. If it was before, then it's understandable for a him to struggle with pre-Christian attachments.
However, I suspect it was afterwards. If so, then he shouldn't have fallen in love and gotten emotionally attached to her prior to her conversion. By so doing, he not only did himself a disservice (by "ruining" himself for another woman), but doing a disservice to his future wife (i.e. if he did end up getting married he was retroactively being unfaithful to her). He would continue to pine for his prior love(s), after he got married and ought to have focused his love only for/on his wife. I place "ruin" in quotation marks because God can still heal someone's heart in such a situation, but it takes a while or not completely. It all depends on the the progress of his (or her) sanctification which is itself dependant on how well one has developed his faith. But even that is ultimately dependant on God's decree.
Marrying out of love is one good (and I think ideal) reason among many to get married. But the Biblical reasons for marriage don't require that. Sometimes love is engendered after marriage. For example, in arranged marriages.
Having said that, it is possible that as Christians we might be suprised to find ourselves ***especially*** interested in and attracted to someone (Christian or non-Christian) prior to marriage.
That's not necessarily sinful. But it can cross a line where it does become sinful. In such a situation, we ought to regulate those feelings within Biblical constraints in order to save ourselves for our actual spouse (if God providentially provides one). There should be a limit to our emotional attachment to non-Christians (who we shouldn't be romantically pursuing anyway), as well as those Christians we are rightfully/legitimately permitted to seek for marriage. Only after marriage should we cast off all restraint and fully express and explore our romatic feelings. And that toward our actual spouse.
I think Steve's fictional story titled "Lost Love" is also relevant. The comments are enlightening too.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/love-lost.html
Also, I think it's a shame that Machen couldn't convince Stearns of Trinitarianism. Was it that she didn't hold to Scripture as authoritative? Or infallible?Various forms of Unitarianism have different degrees of acceptance of the *Christian* Scriptures (if any Scriptures at all). If she did accept the Scriptures then it was just a matter of exegesis and logic. So, I suspect she wasn't that serious about faithfulness to the (Christian) Scriptures. In which case, what business did Machen have in courting her?
I'm not judging Machen because I'm sure there are facts surrounding the situation we're all unaware of. But given the facts presented in this blog, I think Machen made some unwise decisions.
Continued from above:
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, not knowing that he he had a serious romance in his youth, in the past I speculated whether Machen had homosexual tendencies and that's why he never married. I admit that even though, I myself am single, in my mid-thirties and hate it when people (including family, some of whom are Christians) talk behind my back about how I might be gay.
That's one part of the burden of being a Christian single. When other Christians, who ought to know our motives behind our actions (or inactions) judge us and make us feel second class Christians. Especially when Christians who are (how do I say...) less fastidious about sanctification make quick unwise decisions that God later on blesses. That's part of the comfort of Calvinism. We can have confidence that our blessing or lack thereof are due to God's wise providence and that whatever sacrifices we have made to "go without" (temporarily or permanently) have not been forgotten by our good and gracious God.
Job 23:10 "But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold."
Heb. 6:10 "For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name..."
Psa. 39:7-8 “And now, Lord, what do I wait for? My hope is in You. Deliver me from all my transgressions; Do not make me the reproach of the foolish."
Psa. 119:30-32 "I have chosen the way of truth; Your judgments I have laid before me. I cling to Your testimonies; O LORD, do not put me to shame! I will run the course of Your commandments, For You shall enlarge my heart."
Psa. 138:8 "The LORD will perfect that which concerns me; Your mercy, O LORD, endures forever; Do not forsake the works of Your hands."
Psa. 57:2 "I will cry out to God Most High, To God who performs all things for me."
Rom. 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."
Fear not, little flock, He goeth ahead,
Your Shepherd selecteth the path you must tread;
The waters of Marah He’ll sweeten for thee,
He drank all the bitter in Gethsemane.
As an additional consolation for fellow single Christians, be further assured that while "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the LORD." (Prov. 18:22), and while "Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers, But a prudent wife is from the LORD." (Prov. 19:14), that "The blessing of the LORD makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it." (Prov 10:22).
ReplyDeleteThat is, you're better not marrying at all (or for now) than marrying the wrong person who will cause you trouble, sorrow, heartache, and remorse.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
ReplyDeleteHowever, I suspect it was afterwards. If so, then he shouldn't have fallen in love and gotten emotionally attached to her prior to her conversion.
Hm, yeah, maybe so. Maybe you're right, Annoyed Pinoy.
But then again sometimes you can't help falling in love with another person (unbeliever) even as a Christian. We're not necessarily directly in control of our feelings, I don't think. Or at least not in the same way we might be in control of other faculties.
Also, some people (unbelievers) are genuinely blessed with good qualities, even excellent qualities. And sometimes these qualities are the very qualities which we ourselves have always looked for and find sublimely attractive in a potential spouse.
And sometimes the Christians around you aren't exactly "all that," to put it mildly, even though they are Christian.
Of course, I'm not condoning dating let alone marrying unbelievers here.
Still, I do think it's a testament to Machen and others like him who never married "the love of their lives" when they could have, because it might've somehow tarnished their faith. When push came to shove, they chose to be faithful to what they understood the Bible said. They chose fidelity to God and his Word.
I think it's also poignant to know Machen wrote a book like Christianity and Liberalism (among other things) in light of his relationship with Stearns who was a Unitarian.
As I've said before, one of the paradoxical features of life in a fallen word is that some individuals who are far from personally ideal can still project an ideal–such as a feminine ideal. Some of them become movie stars or opera singers or pop vocalists or dancers, &c.
ReplyDeleteIf we're drawn to them, we can be drawn to a genuine good, even though they are personally bad. The vessel is evil, yet emblematic of a transcendent good.
To some extent, Machen did himself a disservice. On the other hand, he wasn't like an unplayed instrument, gathering dust. There were trade-offs in his ill-fated, but reciprocated, feelings for a woman he deeply loved, but knew he couldn't have.
Strong relationships can form within a short period of time, in the context of marriage (Genesis 29:9-18) and in the context of friendship (1 Samuel 18:1-4). It can take longer to discern whether a person is a Christian, or how mature that person is in the faith, than it takes to form a strong attachment to that person. An issue such as whether a person is a Trinitarian may not come up in the earliest days of a relationship, or there may be a misunderstanding that isn't resolved until later. Annoyed Pinoy, when you say that Machen "shouldn't have fallen in love and gotten emotionally attached to her", I don't know what you mean by those terms or how you would know how to define them in Machen's context. How would you know how "attached" he was to Stearns, if all you have to go by is Steve's description? If he refused to marry her unless she became a Christian, then how do you know that he went too far?
ReplyDeleteWaiting to marry an unbeliever if she ever becomes a Christian isn't equivalent to a commitment to marry an unbeliever in that state of unbelief. If she remains an unbeliever, then you don't ever marry her.
You're correct in your comments about giving Machen the benefit of the doubt where we're ignorant of relevant details. I think there are enough ambiguities in his relationship with Stearns, as Steve describes it, to avoid the conclusion that he did anything wrong. To the contrary, though Machen may have erred in some details I'm unaware of (having read nothing more than Steve's post on Machen's relationship with this woman), I think that what he did (assuming Steve's interpretation) was commendable.
Many of the principles you've discussed in response to Steve's post are correct and applicable as general principles to relationships like marriage. But I don't see how they get us specifically to the conclusion that Machen was wrong. Your concept of "retroactively being unfaithful" to a future wife could be applied to a relationship with a Christian woman as well. What if you pursue, for marriage, a Christian woman who won't marry you? Similar questions could be asked of other relationships, like friendship. There's risk involved in relationships. God has designed life that way. There's risk in proposing to a woman who may decline the offer, there's risk in inviting somebody you view as a friend into a closer relationship with you, etc. How would Machen know, early in life, that Stearns wouldn't become a Christian or that he would later meet some other woman, a Christian woman, whom he should marry instead? If you wait on what God might do in the future, that principle can be applied to marrying Christian women as well, and when do you stop waiting?
I've referred to general principles above because we have to allow for exceptions. God may have provided guidance to Machen that we aren't aware of, in the form of his circumstances or inner impressions, for example. We don't know. We have to be careful in sifting such things in our own lives, especially in an age like ours in which so many professing Christians are so immature. But Machen was a mature enough Christian to deserve a significant benefit of the doubt, and he had access to a lot of relevant information we don't have.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who is going to set out on a course like Machen's needs to consider the cost and needs to be vigilant. There are dangers involved. But it's not an inherently sinful course to take. Those who finish that course faithfully, as Machen apparently did, should be commended, not criticized.
I should say, in closing, though this is a matter involving another topic, I read an article on Machen several years ago that I recommend. Machen's last words are among the best I've ever heard. He finished well, and we all should seek to finish in a similar manner. The more Christ-centered your thoughts, speech, and life in general are, the more likely it is that you will finish that way. You can finish well by living in preparation for it now.
Steve, all of what you said are givens and "understood". I wholeheartedly agree.
ReplyDeleteJason said:
An issue such as whether a person is a Trinitarian may not come up in the earliest days of a relationship
I'm not exactly sure when I was regenerated, but in my earliest days as a serious Bible believer I rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. So, I can really simpathize with those who reject the doctrine. Whether they be Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Semi-Arians, Modalists, Binitarians, Pneumatomachians etc. Btw, that's why I pray God would one day make Greg Stafford the "Apostle Paul" to Jehovah's Witnesses. Because of the sovereign Spirit's blowing where He will, and the progressive nature of sanctification, I think there are genuinely regenerate Christians who don't (as yet) hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. I assume/expect that for the majority of them, God will eventually lead them to believe the doctrine of the Trinity before they die; since I'm personally convinced that the historic formulation of trinitarianism best harmonizes all the relevant Biblical data on the nature of God.
When meeting (even fellowshiping) with other professing Christians, the issue of the nature of the Godhead may not immediately be brought up. But it will soon enough. Since it's only natural to pick up on things people say or pray. What they emphasize, and what they don't. Whether they consciously are aware of the historic doctrine of the Trinity or not. Whether, like most Evangelicals, their understanding of the Trinity is more Modalistic (think of the often used analogy of God being like the three states of H2O: liquid know as water, solid as ice, vapor as steam). Now, when I hear fellow Christians speak in those terms, I don't immediately jump go into heresy hunter mode and chide them for their un-Biblical beliefs. Eventually, I'll bring it up, but since they at least believe in the full deity of Jesus, it's not an urgent concern of mine. But when it comes to Unitarianism, it's totally different. Unitarians don't believe that Jesus is truly God. So, while all that Steve said about there being natural goods in non-Christians is true, I would immediately question whether this person is truly regenerate or not. Maybe (let's say) she is but God is in the processs of leading her to believe in Christ's deity. For all you know, you're one of God intended instruments for that purpose. You can only deal with what you can see and hear, and not on the invisible working of the Spirit. In such a situation, early on in that relationship, a Christian should realize that such a person shouldn't be acknowledged as a fellow Christian (much less pursue romantically).
Now in the case of Machen, he didn't fully comit to Christ until sometime after he'd already proven himself a brilliant scholar. Maybe it was before that time that he met Stearns. If so, then what I said still applies. "If it was before, then it's understandable for a him to struggle with pre-Christian attachments."
Jason said:
How would you know how "attached" he was to Stearns, if all you have to go by is Steve's description?
That's why I said:
I'm not judging Machen because I'm sure there are facts surrounding the situation we're all unaware of. But given the facts presented in this blog, I think Machen made some unwise decisions.
Even you said, "You're correct in your comments about giving Machen the benefit of the doubt where we're ignorant of relevant details."
Jason said:
ReplyDeleteIf he refused to marry her unless she became a Christian, then how do you know that he went too far?
Should one consider marrying a professing Christian who consciously rejects the doctrine of the Trinity? While he/she might genuinely be regenerated, I think it would be unwise both theologically, and practically. Theologically, I think it's such a watershed issue that a Trinitarian Christian should only marry a fellow Trinitarian (or last the least a confused Modalist who thinks he/she is a Trinitarian). Practically, a difference on such a major topic would be asking for trouble in the future of the marriage. Think of the question of which Church to go to? Theological confusing of the children. et cetera.
In the case of Machen, while techincally, once Stearns professed to be a Trinitarian Christian (as opposed to a Biblical Unitarian, or Non-Biblical Unitarian), he would be free to marry her. But one would think that he would be more suspcious of her theological conversion. Maybe she's just saying it to please him so that he'd be willing to marry her. It usually takes time for someone to become established when a major theological paradigm shift occurs. In fact, it's not uncommon for someone to waver back and forth. Or even fully return to their former position (think, Sungenis and Matatics). If Stearns were a Biblical Unitarian, then the conversion would be more likely to be genuine if based on exegesis and logic. But if she were non-Biblical Unitarian, he would have to be even more careful.
Jason said:
Waiting to marry an unbeliever if she ever becomes a Christian isn't equivalent to a commitment to marry an unbeliever in that state of unbelief. If she remains an unbeliever, then you don't ever marry her.
It seems to me that a Christian who's no longer a young believer (it doesn't even have to be a mature believer) would even consider courting (much less marrying) someone whose an "unbeliever" (whatever you mean by "unbeliever", since there are various degrees of unbelief). A Christian shouldn't be courting an atheist. But a Christian may, with much prayer, fasting and trepidation consider marrying a Presbyterian. JUST KIDDING. My point is that there are degrees of theological disagreement. Some less serious than others. So I think your statement there is ambiguous.
From the details that Steve presented, I think he was courting (pun intended) sin. If not *in* sin (assuming the worst case scenario and she were a Non-Biblical Unitarian holding to "Mere Theism"). There were, and are Unitarians who are non-Biblical and reject in toto Jesus being the Son of God and finding the idea of blood atonement as barbaric. While there are Unitarians who claim to be Biblical and accept Jesus as God's son (e.g. Socinians). Steve's description doesn't give us much clues about which kind of Unitarian Stearns was.
Jason said:
Your concept of "retroactively being unfaithful" to a future wife could be applied to a relationship with a Christian woman as well.
I thought I implied that. In retrospect, I could have made that more clear.
Jason said:
How would Machen know, early in life, that Stearns wouldn't become a Christian or that he would later meet some other woman, a Christian woman, whom he should marry instead?
Both quotes from D. Hart and N. Stonehouse make it clear it was a romance. If Stearns was a Biblical Unitarian, I think Machen was unwise in romancing her. If Stearns was a non-Biblical Unitarian, I think he was definitely in sin.
Jason said:
ReplyDeleteIf you wait on what God might do in the future, that principle can be applied to marrying Christian women as well, and when do you stop waiting?
If I understand what you're saying, I don't think waiting on God means being idle and doing nothing. I know you're not a confirmed Calvinist, but as a Calvinist, I believe God ordains not only the ends (what will happen), but also the means to those ends (how they will happen). And so, I believe we can wait on God and still (must!) actively look for a spouse.
Eccl. 11:4 Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap.
Eccl. 11:6 Sow your seed in the morning,
and at evening let not your hands be idle,
for you do not know which will succeed,
whether this or that,
or whether both will do equally well.
Jason said:
God may have provided guidance to Machen that we aren't aware of, in the form of his circumstances or inner impressions, for example.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly in the case of Machen. Though, as a Continuationist, I'm not against impressions. I believe in the continuation of the charismata.
some typo corrections:
ReplyDeletesimpathize = sympathize
liquid know [KNOWN] as water
(much less pursue[D] romantically).
(or last the least [AT THE LEAST] a confused Modalist who thinks he/she is a Trinitarian).
It seems to me that a Christian who's no longer a young believer (it doesn't even have to be a mature believer) would [WOULD*N'T*] even consider courting (much less marrying) someone whose an "unbeliever" (whatever you mean by "unbeliever", since there are various degrees of unbelief).
So I think your statement there [cross out "there"] is ambiguous.
One question for Pinoy: do you think Christians should have non-Christian friends or acquaintances? Would that include members of the opposite sex? Or should we shun all contact with unbelievers, like the Pharisees shunned the gentiles?
ReplyDeleteFor if you have a friend or acquaintance of the opposite sex, that carries with it the possibility of developing a crush.
So, should we do like the Amish and retreat into our cloister?
Annoyed Pinoy wrote:
ReplyDelete"In such a situation, early on in that relationship, a Christian should realize that such a person shouldn't be acknowledged as a fellow Christian (much less pursue romantically)."
You don't know what Machen knew at the relevant points in time, and whether it's acceptable to "romantically pursue" a non-Christian depends on how that term is being defined.
You write:
"That's why I said: I'm not judging Machen because I'm sure there are facts surrounding the situation we're all unaware of. But given the facts presented in this blog, I think Machen made some unwise decisions."
You said "he shouldn't have fallen in love and gotten emotionally attached to her prior to her conversion". You also said that he "'ruined' himself for another woman" and was "retroactively unfaithful" to a potential future Christian wife. That's why I asked how you know how "attached" Machen was to Stearns, how you know that he went too far. You did later acknowledge that you're ignorant of some of the factors involved in Machen's relationship with Stearns, but your comment about being too "attached" to her wasn't an issue you professed to be ignorant about. You criticized Machen on that point. I'm asking for a justification of that criticism.
You write:
"Should one consider marrying a professing Christian who consciously rejects the doctrine of the Trinity? While he/she might genuinely be regenerated, I think it would be unwise both theologically, and practically. Theologically, I think it's such a watershed issue that a Trinitarian Christian should only marry a fellow Trinitarian (or last the least a confused Modalist who thinks he/she is a Trinitarian). Practically, a difference on such a major topic would be asking for trouble in the future of the marriage. Think of the question of which Church to go to? Theological confusing of the children. et cetera."
I agree. But committing to marry a woman if she becomes a Christian, or specifically if she becomes a Trinitarian, isn't the same as marrying her while she's in the former state.
You write:
"But one would think that he would be more suspcious of her theological conversion."
I agree. But the same principle can be applied to somebody who professed to be a Trinitarian all along (or professed to believe in Jesus' resurrection, claimed to hold particular moral standards, etc.).
You write:
"A Christian shouldn't be courting an atheist."
Whether "courting" is appropriate depends on how the term is being defined. I don't see anything in the details Steve has described concerning Machen that would suggest that the details in his case were unacceptable. For example, if Machen thought highly enough of Stearns to want to marry her if she ever became a Christian, and she asked him about that subject, would it be wrong for Machen to tell her what he thought of her? I don't see why it would be wrong. And that might be called "courting" in some sense.
You write:
"From the details that Steve presented, I think he was courting (pun intended) sin."
If you're saying that it's a dangerous course to take, then I agree. But taking a dangerous course of action isn't always sinful. And saying that Machen was "courting sin" is a step backward from what you initially argued.
You write:
ReplyDelete"Both quotes from D. Hart and N. Stonehouse make it clear it was a romance."
Which, again, can be taken in more than one way. Machen may have erred in some aspects of the relationship, but I still don't see anything that would justify the conclusion that he erred from what Steve has written.
And if Machen did err, it would be important to distinguish between his errors and an appropriate way of being committed to marrying a non-Christian if she becomes a Christian in the future.
You write:
"And so, I believe we can wait on God and still (must!) actively look for a spouse."
I agree, but that's not the issue I was addressing. Rather, I was addressing whether we should refrain from pursuing marriage on the grounds of potential "retroactive unfaithfulness" to a different woman we might marry instead in the future. Your initial criticism of Machen on this point could be applied to him if Stearns had been an orthodox Christian since the time he met her.
You write:
"I'm not sure what you mean exactly in the case of Machen."
For example, if he perceived that his relationship with God was headed in the right direction before he began his relationship with Stearns and that his relationship with God was continuing to head in the right direction as he progressed in that relationship with Stearns, then those circumstances would be a line of evidence confirming the appropriateness of his course of action. And you said that you're open to the possibility of inner impressions. Other factors would have to be taken into account as well. But in circumstances in which we have as little Biblical guidance as I think we have on this subject, factors like the ones I just mentioned become more significant.
We seem to agree on most of the issues that have come up in this thread. As I said before, you've laid out some general principles that I consider correct and useful when applied to relationships and marriage in general. But I think your analysis of Machen in particular is incorrect, and I think you're wrong on the issue of whether it's acceptable for a Christian to be committed to marrying a non-Christian if she becomes a Christian in the future.
Steve asked:
ReplyDelete"...do you think Christians should have non-Christian friends or acquaintances? Would that include members of the opposite sex? Or should we shun all contact with unbelievers, like the Pharisees shunned the gentiles?"
Both our Lord and Paul taught that we are to be in the world but not of the world. Our mingled with sinners to win them to Himself, and Paul says, "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." (1Cor. 5:9-10). So obviously we aren't to look down upon them and shun them.
While I have many disagreements with Vincent Cheung, I agree with his in the following quote:
"You are generally permitted to associate with unbelievers, but there are biblical restrictions and exceptions, which I cannot enumerate here. In any case, you must no longer behave toward them the way you did before, and you must abandon the idea of maintaining intimate and meaningful relationships with any of them. Since your deepest commitments are now vehemently hostile to theirs, it is no longer possible to have the deepest kind of communication and comradeship with them. Even the closest relationships between Christians and non-Christians must remain superficial. Anyone who disagrees with this either compromises their Christian commitments, or fails to understand what it is to have a truly deep friendship...But nothing in the entire range of our activities before the world requires us to become intimate friends with unbelievers. And in fact, it would be a spiritual, intellectual, ethical, and practical impossibility to do so — again, unless either the Christian or the non-Christian compromises his deepest commitments, in which case either the Christian is no longer a Christian, or the non-Christian is no longer a non-Christian. Therefore, although it is indeed possible for a Christian to be on friendly terms with a non-Christian on a superficial level, an intimate and profound communion is completely out of the question."
This was my view long before I encountered his writings.
"What harmony is there between Christ and Belial ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" 2 Cor. 6:15
Steve said:
For if you have a friend or acquaintance of the opposite sex, that carries with it the possibility of developing a crush.
Of course, and sometimes that's natural because you're attracted to a natural good (as you said). That was implied when I said "Steve, all of what you said are givens and "understood". I wholeheartedly agree."
Jason said:
That's why I asked how you know how "attached" Machen was to Stearns, how you know that he went too far.
The two quotes *tell* us he was romatically involved with her. Doesn't it make sense that before he decided to pursue her that he would have asked or would have picked upon the fact that she wasn't a Trinitarian? That's as basic as finding out whether she believed the Bible was infallible. Do you think he pursued her while still wondering what her position on Scripture was? I don't know. Nevertheless, it seems to me that before a serious Christian who is attracted to another person decideed to court the other person, he/she would find out where the other person stood on the essentials of the Faith. Just like if you were going to purchase a car, you would want to know in advanced whether it ran on gasoline or diesel. Admittedly though, the quotes aren't very informative about the nature of the start of the relationship. Maybe they were childhood friends and their friendship blossomed into a romance before he became a serious Christian and he was struggling to break it off. Or maybe they met in seminary where he knew Christian standards and was struggling to live up to them. Again, I don't know. I'm not dealing with the real Machen, but the one I can deduce from the quotes given.
Jason said:
ReplyDelete"...would it be wrong for Machen to tell her what he thought of her? I don't see why it would be wrong. And that might be called "courting" in some sense."
I don't think it would be wrong. You would just have to be careful. Maybe she was a conscienciously moral Unitarian Bible believer/Christian. Then she ended up converting to Trinitarianism. In that situation the theological gap and conversional leap would be much smaller than if she were a non-Biblical Unitarian (or even an anti-Biblical Unitarian). The farther the theological gap, the more cautious you should be and therefore should wait a bit longer to determine (through prayer, by observing the person's of lifestyle) whether the conversion was genuine. Especially since people can deceive themselves into thinking they are truly converted.
Jason said:
If you're saying that it's a dangerous course to take, then I agree. But taking a dangerous course of action isn't always sinful. And saying that Machen was "courting sin" is a step backward from what you initially argued.
Because I realised afterwards that she could have been different kinds of Unitarian. When I initially read the blog what came to my mind was the worse kind of Unitarian. The kind that holds to mere theism but rejected the Bible (worse yet, one who even abhorred the Bible). The best kind of Unitarian would be one who believed the entire Bible but wasn't fully convinced that Jesus was fully God. There's a spectrum between those two extremes.
Jason said:
Rather, I was addressing whether we should refrain from pursuing marriage on the grounds of potential "retroactive unfaithfulness" to a different woman we might marry instead in the future.
Of course not. Since, that person might be the person you actually end up marrying. But then you'd never find that out if you didn't pursue him/her (!). ;^)
Otherwise, you would never marry anyone.
Jason said:
For example, if he perceived that his relationship with God was headed in the right direction before he began his relationship with Stearns and that his relationship with God was continuing to head in the right direction as he progressed in that relationship with Stearns, then those circumstances would be a line of evidence confirming the appropriateness of his course of action.
Well, it would depend on the particulars of those "actions." But in general, I would agree. However, we can deceive ourselves into thinking our relationship with God is okay. There are many instances when a professing Christian has said, "I felt like God was telling me it was okay to leave my wife to be with this other person." Or "I felt lead to do it." Or "I had a peace about it."
Jason said:
But I think your analysis of Machen in particular is incorrect
I now think it depends on which kind of Unitarian she was. With one kind, it may have been permitted, but unwise. With the worst kind, it would have been rebellion.
Jason said:
...and I think you're wrong on the issue of whether it's acceptable for a Christian to be committed to marrying a non-Christian if she becomes a Christian in the future.
Commited? I think it would okay to say that he/she would be open to the possibility. "Committed" seems to strong a word. Especially since, that can pose a stronger temption for the other person to "convert" (whether genuinely, deceitfully, or via self-deception). Especially if that's the only and final hoop to jump through.
If there's anything else you've said that I didn't respond to, it's probably because I agree with your comment.
Annoyed Pinoy wrote:
ReplyDelete"I think it would okay to say that he/she would be open to the possibility."
I would go further. I see no reason to place a limit at being open to the possibility of marrying an unbeliever if that unbeliever becomes a Christian in the future. I think it's acceptable to desire to marry that person on the condition of her becoming a Christian. And if somebody like Machen wants to spend a lifetime waiting on her, even to the point of committing to not marry anybody else, I think that's acceptable.
In your quote of Vincent Cheung, he comments that "Even the closest relationships between Christians and non-Christians must remain superficial." Relationships with Christians are deeper, and a term like "superficial" could be used to describe relationships with non-Christians in a relative or hyperbolic sense. But I wouldn't classify a Christian's relationship with an unregenerate child or an unregenerate friend, for instance, as superficial without qualification. Surely we wouldn't describe David's relationship with his dying son in that manner, for example (2 Samuel 12:16-21). Paul wrote that he could desire to make himself accursed for the salvation of unbelievers (Romans 9:2-3). The phrase "for the sake of my brethren" in 9:3 seems to suggest that his concern wasn't just for the glory of God or the completion of his mission as an apostle, for example, but for the unbelievers themselves as well.
Some relational lines are set down for us in scripture. Lust is a sin, fornication is a sin, we're not to marry non-Christians, etc. But I think you're drawing some further lines that are unwarranted. Part of the problem with framing these issues as you have, and as Vincent Cheung does in your quote of him, is the role of other factors like the ones I've mentioned. We don't know who will be saved in the future, so we can "desire" good things for unbelievers (Acts 26:29) and "endure all things" for the elect (2 Timothy 2:10) without knowing who is and isn't elect. We can form a strong attachment to a person early in a relationship, as the examples of Jacob and Jonathan I cited above illustrate. If there's an attachment in some sense between a believer and an unbeliever (a mother/son relationship, a friendship, etc.), it might be used for the unbeliever's salvation or for something that will happen after his salvation. We don't know. If Machen senses a strong attachment to Stearns in the manner that we see with somebody like Jacob or Jonathan, but avoids the sort of attachments scripture forbids (marriage to an unbeliever, etc.), I don't think he would be doing anything inherently wrong by desiring to marry her if she becomes a Christian in the future or deciding not to marry anybody else. It could be a difficult decision, there would be risk involved, and the options should be considered carefully. But I don't think those options are as limited as you seem to think they are.
A passage like 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 can't be applied to all associations with unbelievers. Paul has already told the Corinthians that they should remain married to an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12-13), can attend meals with unbelievers (1 Corinthians 10:27), can welcome them into church services (1 Corinthians 104:22-24), etc. The issue is whether a "partnership with righteousness and lawlessness" is involved (2 Corinthians 6:14). Without a specific argument that such a partnership is involved, why should we think that 2 Corinthians 6 is applicable?