The Intolerant Church

Working through a landmark Machen article, part 7

Jul 26, 2024

Religious intolerance was no more welcome in Machen’s day than now. The same was true 2000 years ago in the polytheistic, polyamorous, anything-goes Roman Empire. Theology is necessarily mathematical, but have one god or many…just don’t be seen as dissing the emperor. The great sin was really exclusivity, regardless of your first-century mathematical-theological calculations:

That brings us to our second point. The primitive Church, we have just seen, was radically doctrinal. In the second place, it was radically intolerant. In being radically intolerant, as in being radically doctrinal, it placed itself squarely in opposition to the spirit of that age. That was an age of syncretism and tolerance in religion; it was an age of what J. S. Phillimore has called “the courtly polygamies of the soul.” But with that tolerance, with those courtly polygamies of the soul, the primitive Christian Church would have nothing to do. It demanded a completely exclusive devotion. A man could not be a worshiper of the God of the Christians and at the same time be a worshiper of other gods; he could not accept the salvation offered by Christ and at the same time admit that for other people there might be some other way of salvation; he could not agree to refrain from proselytizing among men of other faiths, but came forward, no matter what it might cost, with a universal appeal. That is what I mean by saying that the primitive Christian Church was radically intolerant.

It’s pretty obvious what “courtly polygamies of the soul” and what toleration Machen had in mind in 1933:

Just the year before a very respectable call for tolerant religion had gone out, funded by no less than zillionaire John D. Rockefeller, one of the mainline’s main moneymen.

“In 1932, the book “Rethinking Missions” was published. It stated that its aim was to do exactly what the title suggested, namely, to change the purpose of sending foreign missionaries to the world. Its aim was to seek the truth from the religions to which it went, rather than to present the truth of historic Christianity. There should be a common search for truth as a result of missionary ministry, was the consensus of this book. (Former presbyterian missionary) Pearl Buck agreed one hundred per cent with the results of this book. She believed that every American Christian should read it.” 1

Machen’s call to intolerance was not unreasonable at all. What he wanted was a Christian church (and hence Christian ministers and missionaries) who were Christian.

This was no new concern for Machen. Ten years earlier in Christianity and Liberalism he had already contended that “what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to be long in a distinct category…despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.” One might conceivably accuse Machen of unoriginality or cussed stick-in-the-muddiness. What you cannot accuse him of is inconsistency.

Nor could you say that Machen generally intolerant. He went to great lengths to extol (and explain) tolerance in realms outside the church. We shall quote quite liberally (no pun intended) from the final chapter of Christianity and Liberalism concerning tolerance:

“But is not advocacy of (ecclesial) separation a flagrant instance of intolerance? The objection is often raised. But it ignores altogether the difference between involuntary and voluntary organizations. Involuntary organizations ought to be tolerant, but voluntary organizations, so far as the fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must be intolerant or else cease to exist. The state is an involuntary organization; a man is forced to be a member of it whether he will or no. It is therefore an interference with liberty for the state to prescribe any one type of opinion or any one type of education for its citizens. But within the state,individual citizens who desire to unite for some special purpose should be permitted to do so. Especially in the sphere of religion, such permission of individuals to unite is one of the rights which lie at the very foundation of our civil and religious liberty. The state does not scrutinize the rightness or wrongness of the religious purpose for which such voluntary religious associations are formed--if it did undertake such scrutiny all religious liberty would be gone--but it merely protects the right of individuals to unite for any religious purpose which they may choose.2

Among such voluntary associations are to be found the evangelical churches. An evangelical church is composed of a number of persons who have come to agreement in a certain message about Christ and who desire to unite in the propagation of that message, as it is set forth in their creed on the basis of the Bible. No one is forced to unite himself with the body thus formed; and because of this total absence of compulsion there can be no interference with liberty in the maintenance of any specific purpose--for example, the propagation of a message-- as a fundamental purpose of the association. If other persons desire to form a religious association with some purpose other than the propagation of a message-- for example, the purpose of promoting in the world, simply by exhortation and by the inspiration of the example of Jesus, a certain type of life--they are at perfect liberty to do so. But for an organization which is founded with the fundamental purpose of propagating a message to commit its resources and its name to those who are engaged in combating the message is not tolerance but simple dishonesty. Yet it is exactly this course of action that is advocated by those who would allow nondoctrinal religion to be taught in the name of doctrinal churches-- churches that are plainly doctrinal both in their constitutions and in the declarations which they require of every candidate for ordination.

The matter may be made plain by an illustration from secular life. Suppose in a political campaign in America there be formed a Democratic club for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Democratic party. Suppose there are certain other citizens who are opposed to the tenets of the Democratic club and in opposition desire to support the Republican party. What is the honest way for them to accomplish their purpose? Plainly it is simply the formation of a Republican club which shall carry on a propaganda in favor of Republican principles. But suppose, instead of pursuing this simple course of action, the advocates of Republican principles should conceive the notion of making a declaration of conformity to Democratic principles, thus gaining an entrance into the Democratic club and finally turning its resources into an antidemocratic propaganda. That plan might be ingenious. But would it be honest? Yet it is just exactly such a plan which is adopted by advocates of a non-doctrinal religion who by subscription to a creed gain an entrance into the teaching ministry of doctrinal or evangelical churches. Let no one be offended by the illustration taken from ordinary life. We are not for a moment suggesting that the Church is no more than a political club. But the fact that the Church is more than a political club does not mean that in ecclesiastical affairs there is any abrogation of the homely principles of honesty. The Church may possibly be more honest, but certainly it ought not to be less honest, than a political club.

Machen stuck to his doctrinal guns and his insistence on Christian doctrine, mission, and ministry in Christian churches—for a certain intolerance. And he paid dearly for it. His role in forming the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions ultimately led to his conviction and expulsion from the PCUSA, the trigger for the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 1936. In the end, it was Machen’s nemeses—from moderate, unity-minded evangelicals to doctrinaire liberals—who proved to be intolerant.