Doctrine: Black and White?

Chapter 2 of Machen’s book, Christianity and Liberalism is all about his thoughts on doctrine and how it interacts with our culture. For Machen, doctrine is the core of Christianity. His argumentation revolve around how all of Christian doctrine is based on common sense and honesty therefore justifying it in full. He also argues a zero-tolerance policy to be uncompromising in doctrine. Ironically, he also argues how Christianity is strictly doctrine and not a lifestyle. The glimmer of hope for truthful gold nuggets in this chapter is dim and bleak; nevertheless, let’s try to uncover some.

Machen begins the chapter with laying out a problem with liberalism bleeding into theological seminaries and universities causing professors to shy from the truth in effort to not bring offense and end up risking complete dishonesty misleading their students. This does sound like a problem, and it very well could be a problem at a local university or seminary near you, but I am not convinced Machen’s way of going about solving the problem will actually fix anything. If his goal is to make legalism the end goal of life for every Christian, then I think his arguments well fit his purpose. However, if his intentions are to restore Christianity at its root issue, then I think he missed the mark.

First, Machen writes an almost beautiful sentence. “According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience, but on the contrary, it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.” (17, Machen) My biggest complaint is the general blanket statement over all Christians. My other huge issue is this underlying theme that doctrine is the end of all things - but more on this later. In this quote, he does acknowledge two things well: creed is not based on personal experience alone and doctrine is a reflection of understanding Scripture. But he misses the relational nature of God.

Second, he makes claims that Christianity is not a lifestyle and therefore limits it to historicity and studying it through history. He misses relationship here too. This is where he argues that anyone can plainly see that Christian doctrine is true through reason and logic. His reasoning makes me wonder what he would think about Jesus’ ministry when he just finished sharing a parable and explaining how righteous people tried to hear and see but they could not. (Matthew 13:17) What does it take to know God? Memorizing a list of facts? Studying history until your eyes bleed? I certainly hope not.

Third, he assumes the core of Paul’s life. “Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life.” (19, Machen) On the contrary dear Machen. The very core of Paul’s life was Christ himself. God is the end of all things; not doctrine. Here are Paul’s words for himself, “But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” (Phil. 3:7-9) As it turns out, doctrine is not Christ. I certainly hope that doctrine is based on Christ but please never mistake the intellectual explanation of salvation for salvation itself. You’ll miss relationship with God and mislead yourself.

So Reilly, why need to be so critical of his words? He seems to have good intentions and just wants people to be uncompromising in their beliefs. Is that really so awful? Honestly, I admire his audacity to write this book that is sure to earn and cause controversy. Standing for truth is a boldness I can support. But I will be careful to discern between boldness for truth and boldness for assertions.

Let it be known that being made in the image and likeness of God not only allows us to reflect his character but inherently makes us relational creatures. We were made for relationship with God, others, and creation. Asserting that Christianity is primarily an intellectual exercise of right and wrong is a denial of God and human nature. But how can anyone know God apart from accurate doctrinal teaching? Ask Brother Lawrence who got saved by pondering a tree. God desires relationship with us. He doesn’t function within a system of definitions. He himself is indescribable and completely infinite. Years and years of well-developed doctrine could never amount to fully explain God. Does this mean that we give up trying to understand God? No. But it allows us to strive to know him and live in the mystery when we can comprehend all that he is.

Charity in everything. Knowing that no one can fully comprehend God affects how we interact with our neighbors. What might they be able to teach you about God? But how can you possibly know what is true and who is a false teacher? Ask the One who is True and good. Guidance from the Holy Spirit is mysterious but not absurd. To think that we can live a holy life without God is absurd. Instead of aggressively asserting what you think you know to be true, it might be better to hold your tongue. Ecclesiastes tells us that there is “a time to be silent and a time to speak.” (Ecclesiastes 3:7b) Be patient and prayerful, waiting on God’s timing and words. It takes both grace and truth to be loving. Discerning what is most loving is a wisdom issue. Sorry, Machen… it’s not quite as black and white as you may have hoped.