Machen, “Pope Francis”, and “the hermeneutic of rupture” -- or as it is now known, “the hermeneutic of mercy”

J. Gresham Machen’s work, “Christianity and Liberalism” (1923) is one of those rare theological works that helps to define what Reformed Christianity is even in our day. It stakes out an orthodox position, and it contrasts it with a line of thinking that was very prevalent in Machen’s day, “naturalistic liberalism”. It’s on the list of books that every Christian (especially those in authority) should read every once in a while, just to keep focused on what is and isn’t genuine Christianity.

Reading Machen is wise and admirable and even necessary. But what should conservative Reformed Protestants think of this quote by Machen?

Say your daddy is rich. Say you're smart. What next?

Both Donald Trump and William F. Buckley came from privileged backgrounds. But while Trump used his advantages to promote self-aggrandizement, Buckley used his advantages to improve the world:

http://www.worldmag.com/2008/03/standing_athwart_history_yelling_stop

B. B. Warfield, Oswalt T. Allis, Gresham Machen, and John Frame all came from very affluent families. After using their hereditary wealth to get a first-class education, all of them devoted their lives to Christian service. 

Whats wrong with Pope Francis?

30 years ago, Francis Schaeffer
correctly articulated the relativism
that Pope Francis is espousing.

One of the standard responses that conservative Roman Catholics give, when presented with some of the things that Pope Francis has been saying, is that “nothing he is saying is contrary to Catholic teaching”.

Bringing up the concept of what’s “contrary to Catholic teaching” is an internal, Roman Catholic problem. Arguments can be made, and have been made, (a) that Roman Catholic teaching itself changed significantly in the last 100 years, and that (b) what’s unique about Roman Catholic teaching isn’t even Christianity.

I’m not going to go in that direction at this point. I don’t intend to provide an in-depth analysis of what he’s saying. What I intend to do in this article is to locate what he is saying within a broader, and quite troubling, stream of thought that has been identified by Christian writers over the last 100 years or more.

* * *

J. Gresham Machen identified one of the great evils of our time in his timeless work “Christianity and Liberalism” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, ©1923, reprinted 2002):

Pope Francis: The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, Redux

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity and Liberalism

J. Gresham Machen, 1923:

Modern men have been so much impressed with this element in Jesus’ teaching [God as Father] that they have sometimes been inclined to regard it as the very sum and substance of our religion. We are not interested, they say, in many things for which men formerly gave their lives; we are not interested in the theology of the creeds; we are not interested in atonement through the blood of Christ: enough for us is the simple truth of the fatherhood of God and its corollary, the brotherhood of man. We may not be very orthodox in the theological sense, they continue, but of course you will recognize us as Christians because we accept Jesus’ teaching as to the Father of God (“Christianity and Liberalism”, 51).

Pope Francis, 2013:

The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood. All are brothers and all children of God. Abba, as he called the Father. I will show you the way, he said. Follow me and you will find the Father and you will all be his children and he will take delight in you. Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes."

History matters

Does it matter that the events recorded in the Bible are historically true? Can we have Christianity without historical accuracy? Does it make a difference if a guy named Abraham ever existed as long as we live like Jesus and love our neighbor? Well, I suppose that depends on how you define Christianity. The distinction is whether Christianity is primarily an ethic or a gospel:

"If religion be made independent of history there is no such thing as a gospel. For 'gospel' means 'good news,' tidings, information about something that has happened. A gospel independent of history is a contradiction in terms." –J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 121

"The historicity of the patriarchs can never be, to us, a matter of small importance. The religion of the Old Testament being a factual religion, it is untrue that these figures retain the same usefulness, through the lessons that can be drawn from their stories, as actual history would possess. This prejudges the answer to the fundamental question, what religion is for. If, on the Pelagian principle, it serves no other purpose than to teach religious and moral lessons from example, then the historicity is no longer of material importance. We can learn the same lessons from legendary or mythical figures. But, if according to the Bible they are real actors in the drama of redemption, the actual beginning of the people of God, the first embodiment of objective religion; if Abraham was the father of the faithful, the nucleus of the church; then the denial of their historicity makes them useless from our point of view." –Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 67

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ...And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." -Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:14, 17)