John Gresham Machen was a genius. His book, “Christianity and Liberalism,” contained such keen insights that it holds painfully true today. Machen was able to analyze and dismantle everything that made liberalism tick, leaving no room for anything other than Christianity. Yet it seems that some of his assessments, particularly as they relate to the state of American Christianity, need to be refreshed in our minds. To do that, comparing some of Machen’s thoughts to another’s may be helpful.
Recently, I stumbled across a panel discussion on The Gospel Coalition featuring Michael Horton and others. The topic was a discussion of Christian Nationalism, a position that Michael was sure to denounce in no uncertain terms. In my assessment, however, I couldn’t help but notice the irony in his arguments. Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. Yet, here he was, advocating an approach to nationalism that almost directly contradicted his position’s namesake.
It is not the purpose of this post to provide an exhaustive list of the theological differences between these two men. Instead, I wanted to show you two points, particularly as it relates to the current discussion around Christian Nationalism, in which the deceased J. Gresham Machen appears to contradict the Michael Horton of today.
1 – Immigration
It’s no surprise that immigration, especially as it relates to race, is a hot-button political item today. Focusing on nation-oriented values, the Right focuses on enriching and preserving the population as a people. The Left, in contrast, focuses on global values, downplaying the nation’s welfare in favor of cross-cultural homogeneity. As it relates to the subject of immigration, the Right generally values national identity and culture, while the Left desires a global identity and cultural sameness.
With this in mind, we can now evaluate Michael Horton’s statements.
“According to the studies, white evangelicals are the most likely group in all of American society to say that we should have a law banning, not just immigrants, but refugees. You know how long Christian conviction has been underneath that one? Now, if you’re really a Christian, you’ll want a law banning refugees, much less immigration and mixed marriages, interracial marriages. That means that white evangelicals are the most racist segment of American society. As a white Christian, that breaks my heart. Whatever happened to Revelation 5:9 worshiping around the lamb from every tribe, and kindred, and tongue and people, and nation, happily?”
Michael Horton – “Christian Nationalism: Heresy or Hype” – May 2021
Michael starts his argument by expressing grief at the immigration policies, namely, tight immigration controls and anti-miscegenation of the past. Even though these are two of the most effective approaches for preserving national culture, Horton claims that Christians supporting these things today “breaks my heart.” Michael then muddies the categorical waters with the rest of his argument, further confusing the audience. Michael appeals to Revelation 5:9 for his political beliefs, conflating the modern-day accusation of “racist” as a person opposed to the theological concept of the Church universal.
Michael’s attempt to include immigrants and refugees into the visible Church, simply for being immigrants and refugees, is such a bizarre claim that it probably doesn’t even need a response from Machen. I am, however, true to my word, so here is an excerpt for Machen on immigration.
“For example, there is the problem of the immigrants; great populations have found a place in our country; they do not speak our language or know our customs; and we do not know what to do with them. We have attacked them by oppressive legislation or proposals of legislation, but such measures have not been altogether effective. Somehow these people display a perverse attachment to the language that they learned at their mother’s knee. It may be strange that a man should love the language that he learned at his mother’s knee, but these people do love it, and we are perplexed in our efforts to produce a unified American people. So religion is called in to help; we are inclined to proceed against the immigrants now with a Bible in one hand and a club in the other offering them the blessings of liberty. That is what is sometimes meant by ‘Christian Americanization.’”
J. Gresham Machen, “Christianity and Liberalism”
Instead of pronouncing judgment on the good or bad aspects of immigration-related policies, Machen’s primary concern is the role of religion in all of this. He is wholly unsurprised that the large groups of immigrants do not assimilate into American culture. Yet, instead of lamenting an ill-defined “racism,” he focuses on the responsibility of Christianity through societal chaos. While Horton attempts to blur the distinction between politics and religion, Machen does everything possible to keep them separate.
An external sense of unity through common customs and language may seem like a goal of Christianity, but requiring foreigners to completely abandon their cultural identity so that they may be a member of the Church is not a feature of the Christian religion. Forcing Christianity upon people to dictate racial and ethnic expectations is a politics-first approach to a civil issue. Machen clearly warns against politicians using Christianity as a crutch to make good citizens out of foreigners.
Immigration Winner: Machen
Machen appears to understand the politics of immigration far better than Horton. Much of the confusion seems to come from a poor understanding of church and state relations. According to Christian Nationalists, the Church’s responsibility is to make more Christians, while the state’s responsibility is to create the best conditions for Christianity to thrive. In his book, Stephen Wolfe summarizes the protestant Christian nation: “… those who can affirm God’s sole reign over the conscience and the freedom of individuals from external coercion, and who at the same time can affirm an outward Christian order that directs people to their complete good.”
Simply put, Christianity will not be Christianity for long if we allow it to be used as a club – making Americans out of foreigners. If pro-immigration policies are changing the landscape of evangelism within a nation (cultural norms, different languages, etc.), the answer is not to proselytize harder. Christianity does not serve the state. Suppose a large number of anti-Christian and anti-American refugees are being imported, significantly impacting the nation’s culture and way of life. In that case, the answer is to reverse the damage with an anti-immigration political stance, not an appeal to the universal Church.
If Michael Horton had spent more time developing his point, he could have made better arguments for his understanding of church and state relations. Instead, he devolves the arguments into accusations of “racism” and emotional appeals. Conversely, Machen provides a much better framework for the Christian response to immigration policies – a reply that does not sacrifice the gospel message to state influences.
2 – Social Change
Later in his panel discussion, Horton was asked how to address Christian Nationalism specifically. He had already suggested that Christian nationalism was a form of heresy, but now he was asked to address the issue more precisely. The panel host asked Michael Horton if church members who subscribe to the political ideology should be put under church discipline. He responded in the affirmative and continued with his explanation.
“I’ve said a few times, imagine what history would have been like if the churches in the South disciplined members who were slaveholders. Imagine the social impact, it’s not a social move at all. It’s a church thing to do. Only the church has authority to discipline its members. It has the power of the keys of heaven, not at the power of the keys of Earth. Some powerful keys, you imagine there are lots of pastors and elders, who would have been under discipline as well as their parishioners.”
Michael Horton – “Christian Nationalism: Heresy or Hype” – May 2021
It’s almost impossible to see Horton’s intentions for church discipline as anything other than a social mechanism for his political ends. Likening Christian Nationalists to Southern church members who owned slaves, Michael makes it clear that they would have no place in his Church. While 17th-century institutional slavery was undoubtedly an unbiblical practice, Horton’s blanket statement about Southern church members raises more questions than it answers. To equate Christian Nationalists with former slaveholders is an even more significant issue that can not be ignored. Disciplining church members because they disagree with your understanding of social issues is almost unprecedented.
Machen appears to take a different approach to the topic of societal change. Instead of focusing on the immediate changes that can be coerced through church discipline, Machen says that social changes are secondary to seeking the Kingdom of God.
“Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity, Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity: Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it is accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: ‘Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.’ But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well.”
J. Gresham Machen, “Christianity and Liberalism”
Machen clarifies that affecting social issues, while undoubtedly a good thing, is not a primary concern of Christianity. Instead of seeking to combat bolshevism or slavery directly, Christianity must always seek first the kingdom of God. Societal and political change happens afterward.
Social Change Winner: Machen
Once again, if Horton had done a better job of clarifying his position, it is possible that his views could have had more legitimacy. As it is, punishing church members for their political beliefs to enact a particular social order is a society-first mindset. By lazily attributing heresy to Christian Nationalism, Horton could pursue church discipline on his members for far more than is Biblically warranted. For example, if a church member did not express enough support for immigration (most Christian Nationalists are anti-immigration), Horton would have enough reasons to pursue ecclesiastical discipline. Would he extend that principle to other typical Christian Nationalist beliefs (anti-transgenderism, anti-secularism, anti-homosexuality)?
These questions would not need to be answered if Michael had maintained stricter categories for these subjects and kept his political desires out of Christianity. If we conflate issues of faith with society’s problems, we fail to understand both. Machen counters, “Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity.” The gospel alone turns people into Christians, but it is the Christians who then go and convert the society.
Conclusion
It may seem strange to hear, but the distinction between the gospel and the Christian is an important one. Evangelicals, in particular, are accustomed to a type of gospel mindset where everything is a “gospel issue.” But social change does not come directly from the gospel but from the Christians. In a Christian nation, Immigration issues are not determined by the first four books of the New Testament. Instead, they are made by Christians and their families, working through social and political means, ordering the nation to their earthly and heavenly good.
If we conflate Christianity with the social beliefs that stem from it, we may find ourselves in the same boat as Michael Horton – a ship that is sinking fast. If we are aware of these categorical errors and discuss Christian Nationalism with neat and tidy markings, we avoid the common pitfalls Machen warns of.
Leave a Reply