So Is Christianity Relevant to Culture Making, Or Isn’t It?

41T6Q05H6NL__SL500_AA240_

Machen was indeed concerned about the dangers that “cultural modernism” posed to traditional faith. But he was even more worried about the “modernism” of American Protestantism and the cultural outlook upon which Protestantism reconstructions rested. For Machen, the moves by Protestants to “modernize” the faith—and not the efforts of “cultural modernists” to move beyond Christianity—comprised the greatest danger to Christianity. For by refashioning Christianity mainline Protestants hoped to maintain the churches’ role as cultural guardian. But in the process, Machen believed, they had confused influence with faithfulness. In fact, he held that theological integrity and cultural authority were inversely related: a theology eager for public influence invariably compromised the Christian faith, while a principled theology could at best benefit society indirectly.

Machen’s cultural concerns, thus, made him in the 1920s a reluctant ally of secular intellectuals but in the 1930s would cost him the support of the fundamentalists. Like Machen, though for different reasons, cultural modernists also bristled under mainstream Protestantism’s moral code, rejected its cheery estimate of human nature and the universe, and opposed its bid to Christianize American society. The subtext of Machen’s theological critique of Protestant modernism—that the churches had no business meddling in society—was good news to the secularists who thought that America’s Protestant ethos impeded intellectual and cultural life. Fundamentalists, in contrast, were virtually deaf to Machen’s ideas about the relationship between Christianity and culture. To most conservatives throughout the 1920s, Machen was a champion of orthodoxy who had reestablished the theological foundations for Christian civilization in America. By the 1930s, however, his understanding of the church’s limited role in public life began to alienate fundamentalists. When Machen’s efforts to reform the Presbyterian Church were finally thwarted and he withdrew in 1936 to form a new denomination, his new church attracted few fundamentalists. They stayed away at least in part because they, unlike Machen, shared with modernizing Protestants the belief that Christian values constituted the bedrock of American society.

D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America

 

In other words, while natural religion is important to make the world go ‘round, Christianity serves another, more counter-intuitive purpose, namely the reconciliation of sinners to God. Arguably, this really was the supreme contribution Machen made: true religion has no obvious implication for or direct bearing on the cares of this world; it is irrelevant to the traditions of men no matter how he conceives of them and no matter how important they may be to this present life; it does not make bad people (or their cultures) good or good people (or their cultures) better; while it certainly has one resident within it, Christianity is certainly not a way of life.

Not everyone seems convinced that Machen was onto something though. Contra Machen, the suggestion here is that Christianity creates culture and that good culture is dependent upon an unadulterated Christianity.

If this isn’t an example of “alienated fundamentalism” I’m hard-pressed to know what is.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Civil religion, Culture, Machen. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to So Is Christianity Relevant to Culture Making, Or Isn’t It?

  1. GAS says:

    I believe I’ve hit upon a name for the likeminded.

    Christian Reformed Amish Party

  2. Zrim says:

    igasx,

    I get it, because of the otherworldiness, right? If I had a dime for every time…

    But this skeptic thinks you’ve gotten quite cynical in the blogosphere.

  3. Rick says:

    He may have been going for an acronym too.

    It’s a long miss. The Amish don’t live hyphenated lives.

  4. Zrim says:

    Rick,

    Yes, the acronym wasn’t lost on me. It’s an Outhouse after all. Speaking of which, and speaking of hyphenated lives, if iggy had read the About tab he’d see that the outlook here is really bad at Anabaptistic withdrawal:

    I was a sociology minor. One of my pet hack theories was that human society is made up of “households.” Everyone belongs to a series of households. These households can range from being a white male in North America (and its antitheses) to being left-handed to having a sugar-tooth. The point is that one’s world view and how one either behaves and/or is treated, is largely effected by whatever households one inhabits. Obviously, one may be a part of multitudes upon multitudes of households.

    Maybe all the hyphens got him turned around.

  5. Rick says:

    Yep, there aren’t too many left-handed sugar-toothed Amish folk. If anybody out there is, please reply below.

    Is GAS skygazing in that picture? What’s he looking for?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s