Everything today is sexualized. Such was not the case during the times of life-long bachelor J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937). Bachelors were not automatically assumed (by some) to be homosexually inclined, as is so often the case today.
Long-time presbyterian blog commenter Darrell Todd Maurina shared some interesting thoughts in a Heidelbog comment:
Dr. Clark had asked me last year to consider posting publicly for the record what I had emailed him privately regarding Machen’s interest in at least one and probably two women after some liberals claimed he was a closeted homosexual. I failed to do so, mostly because I do not have access to a theological library and am extremely uncomfortable posting matters publicly from memory of what I remember reading in books or articles which I know exist somewhere in print, but to which I don’t have access.
However, these comments require a response and perhaps this is the right time: “Why did he never marry? Did he have a girlfriend at one time? As questions of sex and race have intensified in the culture, activists and ax-grinders have not always been charitable (or fair) when assessing these aspects of Machen’s life.”
One of Machen’s biographers wrote that Machen was in fact romantically involved with a woman who (in light of the upper-class standards of the day) was considered to be a very good match for him, presumably with regard to her personal refinement, culture, and family background. There was a problem, however: She was a Unitarian.1 (don’t miss the footnote!) From memory, Machen’s mother was involved in correspondence or personal discussion with her regarding religious matters, and Machen personally arranged to have one of his books (it may have been Christianity and Liberalism) bound for her with a special cover. Upon reading the book, whatever it was, she realized that if she was a Christian at all, she was a very bad one. In other words, she was honest with herself, unlike the liberals in Machen’s own denomination.
(The following paragraph contains what I believe to be new information)
But the reason Dr. Clark wanted me to post is that Rev. Edwin Elliott, the longtime publisher of Christian Observer, told me repeatedly that either he or his father, or perhaps both, personally knew the family of a member of a Presbyterian church, I believe in Virginia, who Machen had quietly courted. Given Machen’s family background in the Southern Presbyterian Church, not the Northern, and the close proximity of Machen’s family home in Baltimore to Virginia, that would not have been surprising. The woman was definitely interested in Machen, and the feeling was mutual, but she was unhappy with Machen failing to be more rapid in his courtship, told him that she had other suitors, and he either needed to move forward or back off. He did the latter, and she married a man who was not only from the South but lived in the South. Rev. Elliott said more to me about how that relationship with her affected his decision to remain in the Northern church and not transfer to the Southern church when things began to get difficult for him in the PC(USA) and at Princeton, but my memory is hazy enough that I am not comfortable repeating what may be family lore without a clear foundation in provable fact.
It appears it is well established in print — though I cannot cite the reference — that Machen had at least one woman in whom he was very interested but understood that he could not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever, and very likely had a second woman as well who he was quietly courting at a different time.
Considering the very public life that Machen lived, and the very small number of eligible women from an upper-class conservative Presbyterian background who would want the life of a seminary professor’s wife, it seems we have a situation of a man who was following the standards of the era in having a match based on social class, but distance got in the way with the Southern Presbyterian belle, and doctrine caused his courtship of the other woman to founder.
As you point out, Brad, Machen lived in a different time and a different social class from ours. “Love matches” based on passion and romance were the exception, not the norm, particularly for the monied and educated elite from an “old money” background. Courtships were done very quietly, often with extensive involvement of family members, and not publicly discussed to avoid causing public embarrassment to the woman in the event the relationship did not lead to marriage.
Machen was far from the only professor of his era who remained single well into his professional life, not for lack of interest in marriage, but because 1) men routinely did not marry until they were accomplished in their profession and had a stable income, and 2) the number of socially acceptable potential wives was very small who were willing to marry a professor.
Furthermore, because it was considered unseemly and inappropriate for a man of power and status to publicly acknowledge courting a woman until an engagement to marriage was all but certain, we often don’t know how many women such men courted because neither the man, nor the woman, nor their respective families, would consider that appropriate for the public to know since it would lead only to gossip.
This isn’t just ancient history. We have only recently learned from family documents that when they were in law school together, many decades before they were on the Supreme Court, the future Chief Justice William Rehnquist had asked the future Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to marry him. She turned him down. But despite their very public profiles, apparently nobody knew, or almost nobody, outside the immediate family.
Put bluntly, the people coming up with garbage about why Machen was single should spend more time studying the marriage practices of upper-class Americans in an era before our culture became saturated with sexuality. WLC 139 cites “undue delay of marriage” as an example of a sin against the Seventh Commandment, and the common standard advice of conservative Christians today to marry shortly after high school or college is better than the older practice, but we forget how radically different the older practice was. The arguments for the older practice were based on the assumption that a married couple would quickly have a growing family that required a substantial income by the husband to support, so it’s not as if the older practice didn’t have biblical grounds for it.
Some believe Stonehouse exaggerated Machen’s attachment to the Unitarian lady, but Darrell’s anecdote implies Machen had some interest in marrying and the opposite sex. Stonehouse also quotes a letter where he expressed delight with several of the ladies at a female college where he spoke. He said he’d happily preach to that crowd any time, but lamented that he was getting a bit old for such things. And he was very, very busy.
More on Machen and women:
This is from the Stonehouse biography:
“There was however one real romance in his [J. Gresham Machen's] life, though unhappily it was not destined to blossom into marriage. One would never have learned of it from the files of his personal letters since it seems that he did not trust himself to write on the subject, extraordinary though that may seem when one considers how fully he confided in his mother. He did tell his brother Arthur about it, and in a conference concerning the projected biography in March, 1944, the elder brother told me that the story to be complete would have to include a reference to Gresham's one love affair. 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. Miss S., as she may be designated, made a real effort to believe, but could not bring her mind and heart to the point where she could share his faith. On the other hand, as Arthur Machen hardly needed to add, Gresham Machen could not possibly think of uniting his life with one who could not come to basic agreement with him with regard to the Christian faith. . . .
Machen had been advising her with respect to study of the Bible. He must have counseled her to read the Gospels through consecutively. He had a copy of his course of Bible study prepared for the Board of Christian education especially bound for her. He sent her copies of his books as they appeared. He had copies of Dr. Erdman's little commentaries and other books sent to her. On her part she indicated an interest in these things, but evidently it was stimulated more by the desire to please Machen than by an earnest agitation of spirit. At any rate her mind was set awhirl as she read some of the books and she was forced to come to the conclusion that, judged by his views as set forth for example in Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923, if she was a Christian at all, she was a pretty feeble one. How tragic an ending to Machen's one real romance or approach to it! It does serve to underscore once again, however, how utterly devoted he was to his Lord. He could be counted upon in the public and conspicuous arenas of conflict but also in the utterly private relations of life to be true to his dearly-bought convictions.” - Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen
Thank you. Glad to be of help.