J. Gresham Machen On The Need For Christian Artists, Christian Musicians, Christian Novelists, etc.

“For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God’s Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God’s service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople. To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation-including, above all, the callings of husband, wife, and parent–is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God’s truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.”

― J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism

J. Gresham Machen On Christianity & Cultural Transformation

“The “other-worldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life…. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”

Only—and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion—the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.”

That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm….

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.

Machen
Christianity and Liberalism

Further Observations On RJR & Libertarianism

I don’t have a problem with RJR quoting the Libertarians or even with him making common cause with them as co-belligerents on certain issues. I acknowledge that RJR often was in bed with the Libertarians. I will even say that I can see RJR supporting a Ron Paul candidacy for President. (Does anyone know if RJR said anything regarding the Paul Libertarian Presidential Candidacy in 1988?)

However, what I object to, as coming from American Vision, is that they want to thump that Libertarian side of RJR completely and then turn around and disavow all the Kinist quotes from RJR as if that side of RJR never existed. The Kinist side of RJR is the balance and tension that is needed for all his Libertarian statements. It is true that RJR was a Libertarian as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s Law word, but it is equally true that RJR was a Kinist as that concept finds meaning in the context of God’s law word. The fact that RJR would have embraced both Libertarian strains and Kinist strains fits perfectly with his understanding of, “The One and The Many,” and the fact that organizations invoking the name of RJR finds problems with either of these necessary strains is telling. Is it possible to be loyal to RJR and recognize his Libertarian strains while denouncing those who also recognize his Kinist strains or would such lopsidedness communicate that such a organization is leaning to far in a non God’s law word conditioned Libertarianism?

But AV doesn’t want the kinist RJR. They only want the Libertarian RJR. Meanwhile the Daniel Richies, Stephen Hallbrooks, and John Loftons don’t want either the Libertarian nor the Kinist RJR. The Theonomy of those people is highly suspect.

Rush was no Libertarian in the Rothbard or Rand sense of the word but He was smart enough to use them to advance His agenda, which had a libertarian side as that Libertarianism was conditioned by a Christian Theonomic Reconstructionist worldview.

I think what we might be seeing now is the unraveling of the coalition that RJR built. RJR was able to bring together a coalitiion of Libertarians, Kinists, soft covenanters, agrarians, and southern sympathizers but it seems that coalition is becoming undone.

Caleb’s Baptist — Question 2a

Caleb,

The Second question and answer of the first Lord’s day gives us the structural outline of the Catechism. The Catechism is divided according to the three part answer of question #2. Part #1 of the Catechism deals with how great our sins and miseries are. Part #2 of the Catechism (the longest part) deals with how we are delivered from all our sins and miseries. Part #3 of the Catechism deals with our response of gratitude to God for our deliverance. The Catechism is then sub-divided into 52 Lord’s Days. One unit for each week of the year. This structuring was often used in order to teach a congregation one Lord’s Day unit per week thus covering the Catechism in one year.

There is a certain logic to be found in this subdivision. A man will not see the need for salvation until he first sees his sin. Once man sees his sin, salvation is what he will pine for and once he begins to comprehend how great a salvation he has been freely given the natural response is to show gratitude to the one who has done all the saving.

Keep in mind that the Catechism was intended to be a kind of basic Christianity. It was hoped that all God’s people would be familiar with the basic truths brought out in the Catechism. Many people want to jump to graduate school Christianity without getting the basics down that are found in the Catechism. This is a dangerous road to take, if only because the basics are instrumental when seeking to understand matters loftier. If we don’t have the basics under our belt loftier matters might possibly throw us for a loop.

The second question asks,

How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

First note how practical the Catechism is. It desires for people to live happily. It believes it is giving a way for people to die happily. The truths in the catechism are expected to have an impact in the way that we think, the way that we live, and the way that we die.

Second, not the premise of the second question. The premise is that Christianity is primarily the life of the mind. Question #2 asks, how many things are necessary for thee to know. With this question the Catechism tells us that unless we rationally understand certain truths we will not be able to enjoy the comfort that Christianity affords. Christianity is a life long pursuit of thinking God’s thoughts after Him. This is not a insignificant point as many versions of Christianity today denigrate the life of the mind in favor of emotion, or encounter or experience. Now, it may be the case that Christianity should well include emotion, encounter, and experience but these are the consequence of knowing God, not the basis of knowing God. I harp on this because much if not most of Christianity is based on the search for a meaningful experience with God, or a encounter with God, or some emotional high from God. The Catechism is not primarily concerned with these matters. The Catechism, following Scripture is concerned with you knowing God, and your undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

Jeremiah 9:23 Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD.

John 17:3 (Jesus speaking) This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

The shift from the insistence on “Knowing God,” to a insistence on “Experiencing God” can be seen in the Christian publishing world. In 1973 a book was published entitled “Knowing God.” It was considered a instant classic. Another book title from that era that was also was quite good was “Knowledge of the Holy.” However another publishing wave hit in 1990 and a book entitled, “Experiencing God,” became all the rage. The two titles of those two books tell a loud story about how the Church and Christians think about God. You should also know that theology of encounter with God is also a big emphasis in certain quarters. I tell you these things so that you might understand different flavors of Christianity as you come across them. Biblical Christianity wants you to know God. Now certainly proper emotions will follow (the emotion of misery when sin is known, the emotion of relief upon knowing that we’ve bee rescued, the emotion of gratitude as a knowing response to our rescue, the emotion of joy knowing that we are safe in Christ, the emotion of love in knowing that God loves us, etc.) but emotions, experience, or encounter are only the residue of knowing God and your undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

Tomorrow we will look at the answer to question #2.

Ode To Hot Water

When Hunger brays, at end of day there is always ample fodder
But oh to play, in the massaging spray, of glorious Hot Water
The aches and pains accumulate from working hour after hour
But they become negated, as I’m saturated in a simmering hot shower

Oh sing the praises of heated drops
That insures that I don’t falter
And removes assorted weary stops
All hail to heated water

When cold nips, or freezing wind rips, a fireplace is the cure
But repeated sips, of heated drips, of water clean and pure
Can warm me from the inside out as fine tea melts beneath hot water
And is served to me, to relieve my chill, by compassionate wife or daughter

Oh lift your voice and give thanks
For the invention of heated coiling
And lift your glass to vast storage tanks
That can deliver our water boiling

When its time to clean, in places unseen, it is a thankless task
But cleanliness next to Godliness is a virtue for which to ask
So, thanking God, we turn again to the civilizing hot tap
And hot water aids in our cleaning parade, filling heaven’s gap

Oh tip your hat, and raise a glass
to God’s invention of the Hot Spring
Inspiring men to bring hot water en mass
To homes that men might sing

Hot water, Hot water, Hot water, may we never miss your blessing
You bathe our children, and clean our clothes so that in finery we’re dressing
Hot water, Hot water, Hot water, may we never forget the time
When men spent their days, in stinky ways, forever covered in grime