Well, before we get started, let's thank the Lord. Father, thank you for this time together. Thank you that you've provided a way that we can meet, that we can fellowship, that we can learn. Please bless our time. Bless those in our church that aren't here. I pray that you'd sustain them and draw them close to yourself. Give us grace to hear, to learn, to apply, and to obey what we learn. And we pray all this in Jesus' name. Amen. OK, can everybody hear me OK? OK. All right, so tonight, I'm gonna be, it's gonna be just a little different, just a little bit, because we're gonna talk more about issues than we are about a person. Now the person is gonna be the connecting tissue of all that goes on, but I think you're gonna see that the issues are what's really important. So throughout our time in these studies, I think you've noticed there's been a strong downward current from the world that each of the men have had to swim against. And this is normal. I mean, this is what the Lord says is going to happen if we try to follow him faithfully in the world. However, I also hope you've noticed that many of them had to swim against a downward current generated by their own churches. And I plan to do a summary of this at the end of our studies, but for now, I wanna say that the person that's the subject of this study, John Gresham Machen, had to face a full assault, both from his church and the world, in a way that no other since the Reformation have had to face. Both the nature of the conflict and the scope of it involved more than a single denomination, and the implications and the consequences continue to be felt in our age right now. And it's not going too far to say that the gospel itself was at stake, and without the overriding hand of the Lord preserving his message and his church, both would have perished. Now that may sound like hyperbole or unnecessary drama, but I believe you'll see that it's true. And once again, I wanna remind you like I do every week that these men aren't superheroes, that they've been raised up by God for their times and place just where he wants them exactly like he does with us. The same God has the same love, and gives the same care and attention to details of their lives as he does for our lives. We sometimes think that he's got a really well thought out plan for them and just kind of a rough idea of how he wants to use us, if at all. But the reality is that none of us has a reason to think we're unimportant just because the Lord has chose us to use us on a stage of different size and dimensions and a different time from others. Those that we're studying are those he chose for their times and places with as much sovereign wisdom as he did with us. We are able to know their stories and see the consequences of their faithfulness because they were on a larger stage at a time when the conflict was intense and their actions were observed by a larger part of the church. The consequences of our faithfulness in our smaller situations may not be evident to others or even to us, but may be just as important from an eternal perspective. It is only when we judge by worldly standards that we see their lives as being more important than our lives. A good example of this, I want you to think about this, is John the Baptist. I mean, he was by no means a flashy superstar in Israel, or even in the ministry of the Lord, or that of the apostles in the creation and establishing of the church. In fact, we know very little about him other than he was doing what the Lord had assigned him to do, and he was doing it in a very eccentric way. In a good bit of the time, he was away from the important events. He was not part of the elite, nor was he even part of the everyday culture of the people. He was isolated in a way that, according to the world, would ensure obscurity and unimportance. But that didn't make him think that his faithfulness in his role was unimportant, and that he could just therefore ignore the eternal realities. As a rebuke to this worldly way of evaluating great men, the Lord himself says about John the Baptist, quote, truly, I say to you, among those born of women, there is arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Meaning that even when we use a worldly standard to evaluate men by other men in the world, our evaluation will be totally wrong. But then he goes on to say, quote, yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And this means that worldly evaluations fail to consider spiritual consequences of our faithfulness in the world to come. Let's not fall into the trap of worldly thinking when we consider our own lives. Okay, end of that. I want to do that at the beginning of every one of these, because if we don't, we get to the point where we think, you know, I'm no good. I'm not doing all the great, wonderful things that these people are doing. Let this be a way of you realizing your life, the way the Lord has chosen it, is just as important. So as usual, I want to give you the resources that I used in this study and remind you, it's just an introduction. There's so much I had to leave out, but I hope it will get you thirsty for more. So here's the first one. It's Jay Gresham Machen, A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought by Stephen Nichols. He came out in 2004. It's a very concise look at his life and the most important books that he wrote to address the issues in the church. The next one is called Toward a Sure Faith. It's J. Gresham Machen and the Dilemma of Biblical Criticism by Terry Chrisope. It came out in 2000. And it's a look at Machen's work to establish the historical foundation for the truth of the New Testament. Then, and this is one of my favorites, it's called, it's a blue book, it's called The Presbyterian Conflict by Edwin H. Reon. And it was written in 1940, and that's when this book was published that I have. It's an eyewitness account of the conflict within the Presbyterian Church in the 1920s and the role played by Dr. Machen. This man, Reon, was president of the Board of Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary, so he was a part of all that was going on. Next, and this one is one of my all-time favorites, it's called The Soul of the American University, From Protestant Establishment to Established Unbelief by George Marston. It was published in 1994. This is a look at the decline of orthodoxy in all the denominations since the founding of our country, all the way into the late 20th century, as seen specifically within the curriculum of the universities they established. So it goes through all the universities established by all the churches and traces how the curriculum consistently has gone down. Next is Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. This is originally printed in 1923. This one's from 1999. This one is probably the most important book. and all of his writings, at least for the issues we're gonna be talking about. It was written to articulate Orthodox Christianity and show the huge differences between that and what was called liberalism. Okay, next, God Transcendent. It's a series of messages addressed to the nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. The Christian View of Man, that one's by Machen, this one is by Machen as well. Multiple Sermons on the Nature of Man, His Fall and Redemption. And then finally, The Great Evangelical Disaster by Francis Schaeffer. It was first published in 1984, this is from 1995. The book looks back at the changes in the church from the year 1900 to the 1980s. and analyzes the causes for the steep decline. So that's where we're getting our information. And all of these I highly recommend. There is one resource I'll tell you about in a little bit that I don't recommend, but you'll see why. So in our time, we're bombarded by pronouncements from the media and from our culture in general that says that the churches in America are impotent relics of backwards, irrational, mythical, pre-scientific understanding of the world. But as hard as it is to imagine, this has been the attitude from the 1850s all the way through the entire 20th century down to today. The foundations of the church, and I mean the capital church, meaning all Christian churches, were questioned and ridiculed to the point that even eventually even those within the church began to think, well, maybe the world is right about some things. Maybe we are expecting too much from people when we make claims of supernatural Christianity and the divine inspiration of the Bible. Maybe we should listen to the questions and current concerns of those outside the church. Well, the Bible had, for centuries, been able to speak authoritatively to the big questions of life. Where do I come from? Is there a purpose for my life? Is there right and wrong, good and evil? Will I be judged for my actions? Who decides my fate? And is there life beyond this one? But in the 1800s, an attack like no other before it began on the veracity of the Bible from within the church. And those from the learned institutions began to pronounce their learned opinions that the Bible was either number one, an attempt by ancient ignorant men to put into words some account of their lives and make sense of a world they didn't understand, but it was definitely not divinely inspired and definitely not infallible. Or they said it could be number two. a record of ancient wisdom that contained what was called the Word of God, that held the secrets to success and a hoped-for afterlife based on performance in this life, but it was definitely not divinely inspired and definitely not infallible. Or it could be number three, a collection of stories taken from other cultures and brought together in an attempt to instill a sense of specialness in an otherwise insignificant tribe of people, but it was definitely not divinely inspired and definitely not infallible. Or it could be number four, a fictional work that was written as a way of understanding the difficulties and struggles of life and a suggested way of spiritualizing them in an individual's life to make them happier in this world. but it was definitely not divinely inspired and definitely not infallible. Or finally, number five, it could be just a fictional work that should be read as any other book from antiquity, and it's definitely not divinely inspired and definitely not infallible. Well, faced with those choices, that is what is coming out of the seminaries, from the doctorates, the professors of the seminaries, it's no wonder that a time of decline in the confidence in the Bible and the way of salvation began within the church. Pastors, faced with ministering to the needs of their congregation, didn't have time to mount a detailed, researched response to the scholars, though many, like Spurgeon and Ryle, spoke against these conclusions, excuse me, from their pulpits with clear reasoning and fierce steadfastness that didn't give way to the quote undeniable evidence provided by the scholars, but they were the minority. But in addition to facing the downgrade from within the church, those outside continue to complain that the church was too exclusive and was not relevant and didn't try to be flexible and didn't take into account the realities of the age of the earth and the size of the universe and the apparent ease with which natural causes could account for our being here. Most of these objections had been going on since, well, since the fall. But the big difference that these later ages had was the weight and authority of the pronouncements of science. And I'm saying science all capitalized. because I'm indicating not just one branch, but the overall discipline and process of testing, measuring, understanding, and then interpreting the world around us. So early on, science decided that the only things that were important were the things that could be accessed through our five senses, sight, touch, smell, hearing, and taste. In other words, the only things that were important were the things that science could measure the physical world. This was convenient for the scientists, as you can imagine, because it provided a lot of focus on their work and gave a lot of respect to their findings. So the results from the 1800s showed over and over that man could understand, the scientific results, that man could understand and manipulate his environment in a way that decades before would seem like magic or divine intervention. So, and we listed a lot of those discoveries and inventions before. So these, along with the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species, convinced the thinking public that the studies of the physical world by science showed there was no longer any need to invoke God in the big questions of life. That man had figured out how things work and the need for supernatural religion no longer existed. However, many had an uncomfortable feeling that something was being left out. And just the fact that they had a feeling or a sense or a fear, which is something that can't be measured by science, should have been a dead giveaway that they were on to something. But the church on both sides of the Atlantic didn't listen to the small voice of concern and instead listened to the loud voice of science and the equally loud voice of biblical scholarship. And in the mid 1800s, churches began a comprehensive program of adapting their message to meet the felt needs of the world, which resulted in a new definition of Christianity that was no longer Christianity. That was the world that J. Gresham Machen was born into on July 28, 1881. Machen's father, Arthur, was an attorney in Baltimore, and he married Mary Gresham from Macon, Georgia. Isn't that fun? So J. Gresham Machen's mom was from Georgia, and she was a very faithful, pious Presbyterian woman. They had three sons, and John Gresham was the middle child. Mary taught each of the boys the Westminster Shorter Catechism and read Pilgrim's Progress to them. At the age of 15, Machen gave a credible profession of his faith and became a member of Franklin Street Presbyterian Church. We don't have records of a huge turmoil in his life at that point, like we have with some of the other people. But all the boys attended a private school and his brothers went on to become lawyers like their father. Jay Gresham, however, went to Johns Hopkins for his undergraduate work and then with no clear direction for his life went to the University of Chicago to study international law and banking. However, after speaking with his pastor during a visit home, he eventually decided to enroll in Princeton Seminary to take courses in divinity while simultaneously taking courses in philosophy at Princeton University. Now, the two are separate, Princeton Seminary, Princeton University. They're close, but they're separate. His goals were unclear, but he was adamant during the enrollment process at Princeton that he was not going to enter the ministry or seek ordination. He wrote to his father, quote, the ministry, I'm afraid I can't think of it, end quote. At the seminary, he was greatly influenced by the famous B.B. Warfield. And though he was very demanding as a professor, Machen grew to love and respect him dearly. He also studied in Germany under Wilhelm Hermann, a noted modernist. And because of his tremendous respect for him, Machen was thrown into confusion by his liberal teachings, which Machen believed contradicted most of what the Bible said. So now I'm going to pause here for a note to myself and a note to everybody here. Be careful who you listen to. You can be led astray. False teachers have always been around and will always be around. As Paul tells Timothy, they learn to speak what people want to hear. Quote, for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. Now, here's the thing. These teachers will be judged for their sin of leading people astray, but you are responsible for testing and determining who you will listen to and who you will trust. Once again, I'm thankful our church is named after the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to see if what they were being taught was in agreement with the Bible. That is what Machen had to do. And when he saw the errors of liberalism, he rejected the movement totally and fully embraced the truth of Reformed theology. Note that we're going to use the terms modernism and liberalism as basically the same ism, and we'll explore what that ism stands for in just a little bit. At this point in his life, Machen was offered a position teaching New Testament at Princeton Seminary, which he accepted. His initial inclination was to stay only a year, but he found the position was very fulfilling to him personally. He lived on campus in the dorms since he was a bachelor and was greatly loved by the students. Side note here, he had only one romance in his entire life, but since she was a Unitarian, he knew there could be no progress in the relationship, but they remained friends throughout his life. In 1914, he was finally ordained, and though he wasn't a full-time minister, he was able to preach in the Presbyterian Church. He was promoted within the seminary, and in his mid-30s, his written work was becoming noticed outside the world of Princeton to the point that he was receiving offers to teach elsewhere. Union Seminary in Virginia had seen his articles defending the conservative position against liberalism and offered him a position as chair of New Testament. He responded to the offer, quote, at this point, I am so deeply rooted in Princeton by a good many ties that it is impossible for me even to accept the great opportunity that would be mine if I should be called to the great chair in Richmond. As mentioned earlier, Machen loved and respected Warfield, and the feeling was apparently mutual, as Warfield would write to Machen later as a colleague rather than as a student, saying, quote, the work you are doing is so valuable to the church. I beg you to hold firmly on this course. We must not lose this course. So with the death of Warfield in 1921, it became Machen's responsibility to carry on the conservative view of Reformed theology, and he published his first book, quote, well, here's the title, The Origin of Paul's Theology, to counter the modernist teaching that Paul's theology was based on Greek philosophy and was entirely different from the religion of Jesus. Over the next several years, he became the most powerful voice in defense of orthodoxy and the most vocal and articulate voice in opposition to liberalism. Now, before we go on, I want to give a brief summary and history of the modernist and liberal movement by quoting Francis Schaeffer in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. Writing in 1984, Schaeffer says, quote, At the end of the 19th century, the ideas of the Enlightenment began to have a significant influence upon Christianity in America. Now it is important to understand what the views of the Enlightenment were, for they have left a radical mark upon religion in America up to this day. The Enlightenment was a movement of thought which began to appear in the mid 17th century and reached its most clear-cut form in 18th century Germany. In general, it was an intellectual movement which emphasized the sufficiency of human reason and skepticism concerning the validity of the traditional authority of the past. Schaeffer continues, It is instructive to note exactly how the Enlightenment is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. So what I'm going to read is what the Oxford Dictionary, how they define. the Enlightenment. Quote, the Enlightenment combines opposition to all supernatural religion and belief in the all sufficiency of human reason with an ardent desire to promote the happiness of men in this life. Most of its representatives rejected the Christian dogma and were hostile to Catholicism and Protestant orthodoxy, spiritual darkness, depriving humanity of the use of its rational facilities. Their fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature, which blinded them to the fact of sin, produced an easy optimism and absolute faith of human society once the principles of enlightened reason had been recognized. The spirit of the Enlightenment penetrated deeply into German Protestantism in the 19th century, where it disintegrated faith in the authority of the Bible and encouraged biblical criticism on the one hand and an emotional pietism on the other. I'm still quoting Schaeffer now. This could be summarized in a few words. The central ideas of the Enlightenment stand in complete antithesis to Christian truth. More than this, they are an attack on God himself and his character, end of Schaeffer's quote. So what became known as liberal theology in Machen's time was fully and firmly based on these principles. But how, you may ask me, could the church accept these ideas? I mean, they seem to negate everything about Christianity, don't they? This couldn't have been a mainstream idea, but only a fringe group, right? Well, remember our last study about J.C. Ryle and the study before that about C.H. Spurgeon? This was the same thing they were fighting in their denominations in England. Machen had encountered it in Germany under Hermann, and Warfield had been fighting it in the U.S. before Machen. But surely, you say, this was not a large movement, was it? Well, let me continue with a quote from Schaeffer. In the late 19th century, it was these ideas that began to radically transform Christianity in America. This started especially with the acceptance of the higher critical methods that had been developed in Germany. Using these methods, the new liberal theologians completely undercut the authority of scripture. We can be thankful for those who argued strenuously against the new methods and in defense of the full inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. One would remember especially B.B. Warfield, and later J. Gresham Machen. But in spite of the efforts of these men and scores of other Bible-believing leaders, and in spite of the fact that the vast majority of lay Christians were truly Bible-believing, those holding the liberal to power and control of the denominations. Notice the word denominations, not just one, but basically all the denominations in the country were embracing this so-called theology. Now, we're gonna take a closer look at Machen's role in all of this, but I wanna turn now to the sermon that was delivered on May 21st, 1922 at the First Presbyterian Church of New York City that ignited a great controversy within the Presbyterian Church. The sermon was entitled, Shall the Fundamentalists Win? And was a full-on attack against Orthodox Christianity along with the presentation of the modernist message. It was delivered by the associate minister, Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick. Strangely, the initial part of the controversy was over the issue of whether the associate minister was qualified to be preaching in the pulpit because, and it pains me to say this, he was a Baptist. Yes, he was a very liberal, ordained Baptist minister, and he had been brought into the position of associate minister by the New York church, and attendance had increased during his preaching of the modernist message. But the presbytery didn't recognize him as a minister, so complaints were filed, and admonitions were delivered, and instructions were ignored, and he kept preaching. but the issue of the liberal modernist content of his message was not addressed immediately. So what did he say in the sermon? Now again, I'm not happy about this either, but I have a copy of his sermon right here. And without going into all the flamboyant language that appeals to the itching ears of men, I'm gonna give three examples from his sermon. And I apologize in advance, this is a lot of reading, but I want to be clear that you hear what he actually said. Here's an excerpt just from the introduction. Quote, they, the fundamentalists, insist that we all must believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord, that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration that the original documents of the scripture, which of course we no longer possess, were inherently dictated to men, a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer, that we must believe in a special theory of the atonement that the blood of our Lord shed in a substitutionary death placates an alienated deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner, and that we must the clouds of heaven to set up a millennium here is the only way in which God can bring history to a worthy denouement. Such are some of the stakes which are being driven to mark a deadline of doctrine around the church. The question is, has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with them on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship? Wow. So that is the introduction. So basically, he said in the introduction, well, I hope you understood it, that he agrees that we shouldn't have to believe in the virgin birth, in the inerrancy of scripture, in the second coming. All of these things, he says, you shouldn't have to believe in that, and you shouldn't have to give up the name of Christian if you don't believe it. So now we're going to look at what he says about three of these issues. Number one, and I'm quoting, We may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the gospel who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Here, for example, is one point of view, that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact. It actually happened. There was no other way for a personality like the Master to come into this world except by a special biological miracle. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls who hold it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as a historical fact. Here in the Christian churches are these two groups of people, and the question which the fundamentalist raises this, shall one of them throw the other out? Is not the Christian church large enough to hold within her hospitable fellowship people who differ on points like this and agree to differ until the fuller truth be manifested? Well, oh my goodness, that's not him, that's me. I'm quoting me when I say, oh my goodness, So you can see he is very smooth-tongued. He is very conciliatory. He's saying, why can't we all just get along? And he's downplaying any doctrine or any specificity of doctrine in his words. So bear that in mind as we go to example number two. Quote, Consider another matter on which there is a sincere difference of opinion between evangelical Christians, the inspiration of the Bible. One point of view is that the original documents of the scripture were inherently dictated by God to men. Whether we deal with the story of creation or the list of the Dukes of Edom or the narratives of Solomon's reign or the Sermon on the Mount or the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, They all came in the same way, and they all came as no other book ever came. They were inherently dictated. Everything there, scientific opinions, medical theories, historical judgments, as well as spiritual insight, is infallible. That is one idea of the Bible's inspiration. But side by side with those who hold it, lovers of the book as much as they are multitudes of people who never think about the Bible, so. Indeed, that static and mechanical theory of inspiration seems to them a positive peril to the spiritual life. Here in the Christian church today are these two groups and the question which the fundamentalists have raised is this, shall one of them drive the other out? Do we think the cause of Jesus will be furthered by that? If he, Jesus, should walk through the ranks of his congregation this morning, can we imagine him claiming as his own those who hold one idea of inspiration and sending from him into outer darkness those who hold another, you cannot fit the Lord Christ into that fundamentalist mold. The church would better judge his judgment. Oh my goodness, that's me again. That's not the writer. And it finally gets worse in number three. Quote, consider another matter upon which there is a serious and sincere difference of opinion between evangelical Christians, the second coming of our Lord. In the evangelical churches today, there are differing views of this matter. One view is that Christ is literally coming externally on the clouds of heaven to set up his kingdom here. Christ is coming seems to many Christians the central message of the gospel. In the strength of it, some of them are doing great service for the world, but unhappily, many so overemphasize it that they outdo anything the ancient Hebrews or the ancient Christians ever did. They sit still and do nothing and expect the world to grow worse and worse until he comes. Continuing the quote, side by side with those to whom the second coming is a literal expectation, Another group exists in the evangelical churches. They too say Christ is coming. They say it with all their hearts, but they are not thinking of an external arrival on the clouds. They have assimilated as part of the divine revelation the exhilarating insight which these recent generations have given to us that development is the way of God's working out his will. And these Christians, when they say Christ is coming, mean that slowly though it may be, but surely his will and his principles will be worked out by God's grace in human life and institutions until he shall see the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. These two groups exist in the Christian churches and the question raised by the fundamentalists is, shall one of them drive the other out? Will that get us anywhere? End quote. All right, I'm sorry. I mean, I know this is all very negative and a downer, but I wanted you to hear exactly what was preached exactly what people heard and read and responded to. Now for the ultimate downer, I'm gonna read you his prescription for a solution. All right, quote, this is gonna be hard guys. Quote, the first element that is necessary is the spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty. When will the world learn that intolerance solves no problems? As I plead thus for an intellectually hospitable, tolerant, liberty-loving church, I am, of course, thinking primarily about this new generation. We have boys and girls growing up in our homes and schools, and because we love them, we may well wonder about the church which will be waiting to receive them. Now, the worst kind of church that can possibly be offered to the allegiance of the new generation is an intolerant church. Science treats, this is again part of the quote, science treats a young man's mind as though we're really important. A scientist says to a young man, here is the universe challenging our investigation. Here are the truths which we have seen so far. Come study with us. See what we've already seen and then look further to see more for science is an intellectual adventure for the truth. Can you imagine any man who is worthwhile turning from that call to the church if the church seems to him to say, come and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here except such as brings you to certain specified predetermined conclusions. These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking. Now think, but only such as to reach these results." Now I'm gonna quote the second part of his solution. The second element which is needed if we are to reach a happy solution of this problem is a clear insight to the main issues of modern Christianity and a sense of penitent shame that the Christian church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs. Continuing the quote, these last weeks in the minister's confessional, I have heard stories from the depths of human lives where men and women were wrestling with the elemental problems of misery and sin. Here was real human need crying out after the living God revealed in Christ. Consider all the multitudes of men who so need God, and then think of Christian churches making of themselves a cockpit of controversy when there is not a single thing at stake in the controversy on which depends the salvation of human souls. That is the trouble with this whole business. So much of it does not matter," end quote. I'm gonna continue with the final part of his quote. The present world situation smells to heaven. And now in the presence of colossal problems which must be solved in Christ's name and for Christ's sake, the fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly. Well, they are not going to do it, certainly not in this vicinity. Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us always so in ever-increasing areas of the Christian fellowship, intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair, tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference as though we did not care about the faith, but always our major emphasis is on the weightier matters of the law. End quote. And with that strangely inconsistent statement, he ended his sermon. It was printed and distributed, causing a lot of interest on both sides, and it was here that Machen became the spokesman for the Orthodox view. It was in 1923, a year later, that he wrote his response to the liberal theology, And it was called Christianity and Liberalism. That year, he also wrote his textbook for New Testament Greek, which I actually have here. At one time, I thought I was going to go and learn Greek, but I did not. But this is his textbook. And incidentally, he dedicated both of these to his mother. So attaboy for faithful moms. In Machen's 16-page introduction to the book, he wrote, now again, I apologize for the reading, but you need to hear it. Quote, the purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself. Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implication of religious views is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. But with such persons, we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. In the sphere of religion in particular, the present time is a time of conflict. The great redemptive religion, which has always been known as Christianity, is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. Then he talks, then Machen talks about the liberals' contention that historic Christianity is disconnected from modern science and all that science is telling us. Machen says, quote, our principal concern now is to show that the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity. so that what remains is in essentials only, that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came on the scene. In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy with those concessions the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here, as in many other departments of life, it appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be the hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending. Such considerations, however, should not be allowed to obscure the vital importance of the question at issue. If a condition could be conceived in which all the preaching of the church should be controlled by the liberalism, which in many quarters has already become preponderant, then we believe Christianity would at last have perished from the earth and the gospel would have sounded forth for the last time. If so, it follows that the inquiry which we are now concerned is immeasurably the most important of all those with which the church has to deal. Vastly more important than all the questions with regard to the methods of preaching is the root question as to what is it that shall be preached. He concludes his introduction. Quote, in setting forth the current liberalism, now almost dominant in the church, over against Christianity, we are animated therefore by no merely negative or polemical purpose. On the contrary, by showing what Christianity is not, we hope to be able to show what Christianity is. In order that men may be led to turn from the weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God. He then delivers in this little book, 160 pages of clear historical biblical teaching on the following six topics. Number one, doctrine. Number two, God and man. Number three, the Bible. Number four, Christ. Number five, salvation. Number six, the church. Now, each of these chapters is an excellent explanation for the reason they're all included, and then it addresses the objections and the disastrous consequences that follow from abandoning or watering down any one of them. But despite the clarity and the biblical grounding of the arguments he presented, liberal theology continued to gain momentum. Now, I know you're saying, Pause for a minute. This is just too much of a downer, and let me just tell you, it gets worse. Later that year, a group of Presbyterian ministers gathered in Auburn, New York, to reject the requirements for ordination into the Presbyterian Church that had been adopted in 1910 and reaffirmed earlier that same year in 1923. These requirements stated that in order to be ordained, a candidate had to believe in the following five cardinal doctrines. one, the inerrancy of scripture, two, the virgin birth of Christ, three, the substitutionary atonement, four, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and five, the miracles of Christ. All the things that were addressed in the sermon of that Baptist minister. The ministers in the Presbyterian church published their rejection of these requirements, and it was called the Auburn Affirmation. which sounds kind of backwards, but that is really what this little book is all about, The Presbyterian Conflict. Then in 1924, the next year, a fellow named Shaylor Matthews, another Baptist and head of the University of Chicago Divinity School published the faith of modernism, which went even further than the sermon in redefining Christianity to be more palatable and easy to live with for modern society. His premise was that Christianity must adapt or perish, even if it meant rethinking key verses and doctrines. And though he was a Baptist, there were many in the Presbyterian church that agreed so that by 1924, the previously mentioned Auburn Affirmation had been signed by over 1,200 Presbyterian ministers. Machen's conservatism and his ability to articulate the gospel doctrines clearly and specifically did not sit well with the liberal minded in the denomination. An example of the many battles that Machen faced and the persecution he would face in 1924 was when he was preaching at the First Presbyterian Church in Princeton. A literature professor from Princeton University, not the seminary, but from Princeton University, complained about Machen in a letter to the elders of the church. He also sent the letter to the New York Times. He blasted Machen and said that the few Sundays when he, the author, was able to attend the services, quote, they are too precious to be wasted in listening to such a dismal, rebellious travesty of the gospel. What Machen says is untrue and malicious. Until he is done, count me out and give up my pew in the church. The New York Times dutifully published the letter. Machen believed that one of the main problems in the church was not the super left-wing modernist or liberals, but the moderates, the indifferentists, as he called them, who in their desperate desire for unity strove for an environment of toleration, except for tolerating the historic biblical approach to the gospel. The situation was not just apparent in the denomination, but it was becoming evident in Princeton University and their influence in Princeton Seminary as well. It was due to the loud voice and growing control of the modernist and the indifferentist unwillingness to rebuke them or tone them down that Machen became convinced of the need to leave Princeton and start a new seminary on September 25th, 1929. Westminster Theological Seminary. And although the stock market crashed a month later, the seminary prospered. Many of the students and the faculty left Princeton to come to Westminster, and also some of the board of trustees at Princeton left to take on board roles at Westminster. During the following years, the Presbyterian Church continued to become more liberal if that's possible. In 1933, a report supported by the Presbyterian Church and six other denominations was issued advocating, get ready, a paradigm shift in missions based on the premise that the Christian faith is not the exclusively true religion. The report recommended a more syncretistic approach with accommodating attitudes and more concern for other religions. Machen characterized the new work of missions as seeking the truth, not presenting it, and decided to start a new missions organization based on the power of the biblical gospel, the Independent Board of Foreign Missions. Well, the General Assembly in 1934 ruled that the new missions organization was unconstitutional and they ordered it to be closed or the members and officers would be subject to discipline by the church. At that point, several of Machen's friends left him and he ended up being in the New York Times again as the headline read, Presbytery to Try Machen as a Rebel. So it was a full trial. in the Presbyterian Church. And in 1935, he was defrocked and stripped of his credentials, meaning he was no longer a minister or part of the Presbyterian. He and his friends appealed the ruling, but in the meantime, he and several others had laid plans for a new church. So he did a new seminary, a new missions organization, now a new church. And he founded a new magazine called the Presbyterian Guardian to support the conservative cause. He played the leading role in writing and editing and publishing, along with his work at the seminary, and he was becoming weary of the battles he faced on all sides. In June of 1936, the General Assembly denied his appeal and he wasted no time in leading the first General Assembly of the New Presbyterian Church of America, later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And don't ask me about all the branches of Presbyterian Church, I don't understand them. The first assembly was attended by only 120 dedicated ministers, but it set the stage for the second assembly held in November of 1936. At that second assembly, Machen said, with relief from the battles left behind and with excitement for what was ahead, quote, what a privilege to carry the message of the cross unshackled by compromising associations to all the world. What a privilege to send it to foreign lands. What a privilege to send it to the souls of people who sit in nominally Christian churches and starve for the lack of the bread of life." The next month, December of 1936, he went to North Dakota to help strengthen a new church, but he was so worn down to the point of exhaustion that he contracted pneumonia. His last communication to his friend and colleague, John Murray at Westminster, was a telegram on December 29th that said merely, I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it. He died on the first day of the new year, 1937. Now, I will end this summary of Dr. Machen's life and work with a final quote from Francis Schaeffer's book that puts these events into perspective. He says, quote, by the 1930s, liberalism had swept through most of the denominations and the battle was all but lost. Then in the mid 1930s, there occurred an event which I would say marks the turning point of the century concerning the breakdown of our culture. By 1936, the liberals were so in control of the Northern Presbyterian Church that they were able to defrock Dr. J. Gresham Machen. Machen, as I had mentioned, had been a brilliant defender of Bible-believing Christianity, as can be seen, for example, in his book entitled Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1924. Machen's defrocking in the resulting division of the Northern Presbyterian Church was front-page news in the secular news media in much of the country. However much conscious forethought this showed on the editors' and broadcasters' part, this was rightfully front-page news, for it marked the culmination of the drift of the Protestant churches from 1900 to 1936. It was this drift which laid the base for the cultural, social, moral, legal, and governmental changes from that time to the present. Without this drift and the denominations, I am convinced that the changes in our society over the last 50 years would have produced very different results from what we now have. When the Reformation churches shifted, the Reformation consensus was undercut. A good case could be made that the news about Machen was the most significant U.S. news in the first half of the 20th century. It was the culmination of a long trend toward liberalism within the Presbyterian Church and represented the same trend in most other denominations. Even if we were only interested in sociology, this change in the church's and the resulting shift of our culture to a post-Christian consensus is important to understand if we are to grasp what is happening in the United States today." He wrote that in 1984, and he ends with a chilling observation. Quote, it is interesting to note that there was a span of approximately 80 years from the time when the higher critical methods originated and became widely accepted in Germany to the disintegration of German culture and the rise of totalitarianism under Hitler, end quote. Now, brothers and sisters, It has been approximately 80 years since these things took place in our culture. Look around you and be aware of what is happening. As we close, I will say that in looking at J. Gresham Machen's life, I am humbled by his zeal and by his quiet confidence in the Lord. He believed that these were the Lord's battles, and because of that, he was able to trust God in a lot of very difficult and humiliating situations. on a very large and brightly lit stage. And along with that, he realized that his job was just to be faithful with the gifts and opportunities he had been given. May we all be more like that. Now, I know we spent more time on the issues this time than on the man. So if you want to learn more about Machen, you should read the Stephen Nichols book, or even better, the full biography by one of his former students and an eventual professor at Westminster, Ned Stonehouse. If you want to learn more about the issues, which I highly recommend, since we are seeing the fruit of 80 years of deadly cancerous growth of these very same issues, you should read Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism. Okay. I am done. I know that was a cannon blast nonstop.