By: J. Gresham Machen
This address on “The Scientific Preparation of the Minister” was delivered September 20, 1912, at the opening of the?one hundred and first session of Princeton Theological Seminary. It is found in the Princeton Theological Review,?Vol. XI, No. 1, 1913, p. 1.
One of the greatest of the problems that has agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge?and piety, between culture and Christianity. This problem has appeared first of all in the presence of two tendencies?in the Church – the scientific or academic tendency, and what may be called the practical tendency. Some men have?devoted themselves chiefly to the task of forming right conceptions as to Christianity and its foundations. To them?no fact, however trivial, has appeared worthy of neglect; by them truth has been cherished for its own sake, without?immediate reference to practical consequences. Some, on the other hand, have emphasized the essential simplicity of?the gospel. The world is lying in misery, we ourselves are sinners, men are perishing in sin everyday. The gospel is?the sole means of escape; let us preach it to the world while yet we may. So desperate is the need that we have no?time to engage in vain babblings or old wives’ fables. While we are discussing the exact location of the churches of?Galatia, men are perishing under the curse of the law; while we are settling the date of Jesus’ birth, the world is doing?without its Christmas message.
The representatives of both of these tendencies regard themselves as Christians, but too often there is little?brotherly feeling between them. The Christian of academic tastes accuses his brother of undue emotionalism, of?shallow argumentation, of cheap methods of work. On the other hand, your practical man is ever loud in his?denunciation of academic indifference to the dire needs of humanity. The scholar is represented either as a?dangerous disseminator of doubt, or else as a man whose faith is a faith without works. A man who investigates?human sin and the grace of God by the aid of dusty volumes, carefully secluded in a warm and comfortable study,?without a thought of the men who are perishing in misery every day!
But if the problem appears thus in the presence of different tendencies in the Church, it becomes yet far more?insistent within the consciousness of the individual! If we are thoughtful, we must see that the desire to know and the?desire to be saved are widely different. The scholar must apparently assume the attitude of an impartial observer – an?attitude which seems absolutely impossible to the pious Christian laying hold upon Jesus as the only Saviour from?the load of sin. If these two activities – on the one hand the acquisition of knowledge, and on the other the exercise?and the inculcation of simple faith – are both to be given a place in our lives, the question of their proper relationship?cannot be ignored.
The problem is made for us the more difficult of solution because we are unprepared for it. Our whole system of?school and college education is so constituted as to keep religion and culture as far apart as possible and ignore the?question of the relationship between them. On five or six days in the week, we were engaged in the acquisition of?knowledge. From this activity the study of religions was banished. We studied natural science without considering?its bearing or lack of bearing upon natural theology or upon revelation. We studied Greed without opening the New?Testament. We studied history with careful avoidance of that greatest of historical movements which was ushered in?by the preaching of Jesus. In philosophy, the vital importance of the study of religion could not entirely be?concealed, but it was kept as far as possible in the background. On Sundays, on the other hand, we had religious?instruction that called for little exercise of the intellect. Careful preparation for Sunday School lessons as for lessons?in mathematics or Latin was unknown. Religion seemed to be something that had to do only with the emotions and?the will, leaving the intellect to secular studies. What wonder that after such training we came to regard religion and?culture as belonging to two entirely separate compartments of the soul, and their union as involving the destruction?of both?
Upon entering the Seminary, we are suddenly introduced to an entirely different procedure. Religion is suddenly?removed from its seclusion; the same methods of study are applied to it as were formerly reserved for natural science?and for history. We study the Bible no longer solely with the desire of moral and spiritual improvement, but also in?order to know. Perhaps the first impression is one of infinite loss. The scientific spirit seems to be replacing simple?faith, the mere apprehension of dead facts to be replacing the practice of principles. The difficulty is perhaps not so?much that we are brought face to face with new doubts as to the truth of Christianity. Rather is it the conflict of?method, of spirit that troubles us. The scientific spirit seems to be incompatible with the old spirit of simple faith. In?short, almost entirely unprepared, we are brought face to face with the problem of the relationship between?knowledge and piety, or, otherwise expressed, between culture and Christianity.
This problem may be settled in one of three ways. In the first place, Christianity may be subordinated to culture.?That solution really, though to some extent unconsciously, is being favoured by a very large and influential portion?of the Church today. For the elimination of the supernatural in Christianity – so tremendously common today – really?makes Christianity merely natural. Christianity becomes a human product, a mere part of human culture. But as?such it is something entirely different from the old Christianity that was based upon a direct revelation from God.?Deprived thus of its note of authority, the gospel is no gospel any longer; it is a cheque for untold millions – but?without the signature at the bottom. So in subordinating Christianity to culture we have really destroyed Christianity,?and what continues to bear the old name is a counterfeit.
The second solution goes to the opposite extreme. In its effort to give religion a clear field, it seeks to destroy?culture. This solution is better than the first. Instead of indulging in a shallow optimism or deification of humanity, ?it recognizes the profound evil of the world, and does not shrink from the most heroic remedy. The world is so evil?that it cannot possibly produce the means for its own salvation. Salvation must be the gift of an entirely new life,?coming directly from God. Therefore, it is argued, the culture of this world must be a matter at least of indifference?to the Christian. Now in its extreme form this solution hardly requires refutation. If Christianity is really found to?contradict that reason which is our only means of apprehending truth, then of course we must either modify or?abandon Christianity. We cannot therefore be entirely independent of the achievements of the intellect. ?Furthermore, we cannot without inconsistency employ the printing-press, the railroad, the telegraph in the?propagation of our gospel, and at the same time denounce as evil those acitivites of the human mind that produced?these things. And in the production of these things not merely practical inventive genius had a part, but also, back of?that, the investigations of pure science animated simply by the desire to know. In its extreme form, therefore,?involving the abandonment of all intellectual activity, this second solution would be adopted by none of us. But very?many pious men in the Church today are adopting this solution in essence and in spirit. They admit that the Christian?must have a part in human culture. But they regard such activity as a necessary evil – a dangerous and unworthy task?necessary to be gone through with under a stern sense of duty in order that thereby the higher ends of the gospel may?be attained. Such men can never engage in the arts and sciences with anything like enthusiasm – such enthusiasm?they would regard as disloyalty to the gospel. Such a position is really both illogical and unbiblical. God has given?us certain powers of mind, and has implanted within us the ineradicable conviction that these powers were intended?to be exercised. The Bible, too, contains poetry that exhibits no lack of enthusiasm, no lack of a keen appreciation of?beauty. With this second solution of the problem we cannot rest content. Despite all we can do, the desire to know and the love of beauty cannot be entirely stifled, and we cannot permanently regard these desires as evil.
Are then Christianity and culture in a conflict that is to be settled only by the destruction of one or the other of the?contending forces? A third solution fortunately, is possible – namely consecration. Instead of destroying the arts and?sciences or being indifferent to them, let us cultivate them with all the enthusiasm of the veriest humanist, but at the?same time consecrate them to the service of our God. Instead of stifling the pleasures afforded by the acquisition of?knowledge or by the appreciation of what is beautiful, let us accept these pleasures as the gifts of a heavenly Father. ?Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from?the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the?world subject to God.
Certain obvious advantages are connected with such a solution of the problem. In the first place, a logical?advantage. A man can believe only what he holds to be true. We are Christians because we hold Christianity to be?true. But other men hold Christianity to be false. Who is right? That question can be settled only by an examination?and comparison of the reasons adduced on both sides. It is true, one of the grounds for our belief is an inward?experience that we cannot share – the great experience begun by conviction of sin and conversion and continued by?communion with God – an experience which other men do not possess, and upon which, therefore, we cannot directly?base an argument. But if our position is correct, we ought at least to be able to show the other man that his reasons?may be inconclusive. And that involves careful study of both sides of the question. Furthermore, the field of?Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to?Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all?of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavour. It?must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or?else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely?extensively, but also intensively. The Chruch must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the?whole of man. We are accustomed to encourage ourselves in our discouragements by the thought of the time when?every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. No less inspiring is the other aspect of that same?great consummation. That will also be a time when doubts have disappeared, when every contradiction has been?removed, when all of science converges to one great conviction, when all of art is devoted to one great end, when all?of human thinking is permeated by the refining, ennobling influence of Jesus, when every thought has been brought?into subjection to the obedience of Christ.
If to some of our practical men, these advantages of our solution of the problem seem to be intangible, we can?point to the merely numerical advantage of intellectual and artistic activity within the Church. We are all agreed that?at least one great function of the Church is the conversion of individual men. The missionary movement is the great?religous movement of our day. Now it is perfectly true that men must be brought to Christ one by one. There are no?labor-saving devices in evangelism. It is all hand-work. And yet it would be a great mistake to suppose that all men?are equally well prepared to receive the gospel. It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God.?That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. But as a?matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it?should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favourable conditions for the reception of the?gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervour of a?reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the?nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from?being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is?to destroy the obstacle at its root. Many would have the seminaries combat error by attacking it as it is taught by its?popular exponents. Instead of that they confuse their students with a lot of German names unknown outside the walls?of the universities. That method of procedure is based simply upon a profound belief in the pervasiveness of ideas.?What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that?second stage, it has gone too far to be combatted; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate?debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of?Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. Thoughtful men are wondering why the students of our great?Eastern universities no longer enter the ministry or display any very vital interest in Christianity. Various totally?inadequate explanations are proposed, such as the increasing attractiveness of other professions – an absurd?explanation, by the way, since other professions are becoming so over-crowded that a man can barely make a living?in them. The real difficulty amounts to this – that the thought of the day, as it makes itself most strongly felt in the?universities, but from them spreads inevitably to the masses of the people, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or?at least – what is nearly as bad – it is out of all connection with Christianity. The Church is unable either to combat it?or to assimilate it, because the Church simply does not understand it. Under such circumstances, what more pressing?duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who, therefore, do not, like the world,?neglect that the whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience – what more pressing?duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of?truth instead of error? The Church has no right to be so absorbed in helping the individual that she forgets the world.
There are two objections to our solution of the problem. If you bring culture and Christianity thus into close?union – in the first place, will not Christianity destroy culture? Must not art and science be independent in order to?flourish? We answer that it all depends upon the nature of their dependence. Subjection to any external authority or?even to any human authority would be fatal to art and science. But subjection to God is entirely different.?Dedication of human powers to God is found, as a matter of fact, not to destroy but to heighten them. God gave?those powers. He understands them well enough not bunglingly to destroy His own gifts. In the second place, will?not culture destroy Christianity? Is it not far easier to be an earnest Christian if you confine your attention to the?Bible and do not risk being led astray by the thought of the world? We answer, of course it is easier. Shut yourself?up in an intellectual monastery, do not disturb yourself with the thoughts of unregenerate men, and of course you will?find it easier to be a Christian, just as it is easier to be a good soldier in comfortable winter quarters than it is on the?field of battle. You save your own soul – but the Lord’s enemies remain in possession of the field.
But by whom is this task of transforming the unwieldy, resisting mass of human thought until it becomes?subservient to the gospel – by whom is this task to be accomplished? To some extent, no doubt, by professors in?theological seminaries and universities. But the ordinary minister of the gospel cannot shirk his responsibility. It is a?great mistake to suppose that investigation can successfully be carried on by a few specialists whose work is of?interest to nobody but themselves. Many men of many minds are needed. What we need first of all, especially in our?American churches, is a more general interest in the problems of theological science. Without that, the specialist is?without the stimulating atmosphere which nerves him to do his work.
But no matter what his station in life, the scholar must be a regenerated man – he must yield to no one in the?intensity and depth of his religious experience. We are well supplied in the world with excellent scholars who are?without that qualification. They are doing useful work in detail, in Biblical philology, in exegesis, in Biblical?theology, and in other branches of study. But they are not accomplishing the great task, they are not assimilating?modern thought to Christianity, because they are without that experience of God’s power in the soul which is of the?essence of Christianity. They have only one side for the comparison. Modern thought they know, but Christianity is?really foreign to them. It is just that great inward experience which it is the function of the true Christian scholar to?bring into some sort of connection with the thought of the world.
During the last thirty years there has been a tremendous defection from the Christian Church. It is evidenced even?by things that lie on the surface. For example, by the decline in church attendance and in Sabbath observance and in?the number of candidates for the ministry. Special explanations, it is true, are sometimes given for these?discouraging tendencies. But why should we deceive ourselves, why comfort ourselves by palliative explanations??Let us face the facts. The falling off in church attendance, the neglect of Sabbath observance – these things are?simply surface indications of a decline in the power of Christianity. Christianity is exerting a far less powerful direct?influence in the civilized world today than it was exerting thirty years ago.
What is the cause of this tremendous defection? For my part, I have little hesitation in saying that it lies chiefly in?the intellectual sphere. Men do not accept Christianity because they can no longer be convinced that Christianity is?true. It may be useful, but is it true? Other explanations, of course, are given. The modern defection from the?Church is explained by the practical materialism of the age. Men are so much engrossed in making money that they?have no time for spiritual things. That explanation has a certain range of validity. But its range is limited. It applies?perhaps to the boom towns of the West, where men are intoxicated by sudden possibilities of boundless wealth. But?the defection from Christianity is far broader than that. It is felt in the settled countries of Europe even more strongly?than in America. It is felt among the poor just as strongly as among the rich. Finally, it is felt most strongly of all in?the universities, and that is only one indication more that the true cause of the defection is intellectual. To a very?large extent, the students of our great Eastern universities – and still more the universities of Europe – are not?Christians. And they are not Christians often just because they are students. The thought of the day, as it makes?itself most strongly felt in the universities, is profoundly opposed to Christianity, or at least it is out of connection?with Christianity. The chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect.
That assertion must be guarded against two misconceptions. In the first place, I do not mean that most men reject?Christianity consciously on account of intellectual difficulties. On the contrary, rejection of Christianity is due in the?vast majority of cases simply to indifference. Only a few men have given the subject real attention. The vast?majority of those who reject the gospel do so simply because they know nothing about it. But whence comes this?indifference? It is due to the intellectual atmosphere in which men are living. The modern world is dominated by?ideas which ignore the gospel. Modern culture is not altogether opposed to the gospel. But is out of all connection?with it. It not only prevents the acceptance of Christianity. It prevents Christianity even from getting a hearing.
In the second place, I do not mean that the removal of intellectual objections will make a man a Christian. No?conversion was ever wrought simply by argument. A change of heart is also necessary. And that can be wrought?only by the immediate exercise of the power of God. But because intellectual labour is insufficient it does not?follow, as is so often assumed, that it is unnecessary. God may, it is true, overcome all intellectual obstacles by an?immediate exercise of His regenerative power. Sometimes He does. But He does so very seldom. Usually He exerts?His power in connection with certain conditions of the human mind. Usually He does not bring into the Kingdom,?entirely without preparation, those whose mind and fancy are completely dominated by ideas which made the?acceptance of the gospel logically impossible.
Modern culture is a tremendous force. It affects all classes of society. It affects the ignorant as well as the?learned. What is to be done about it? In the first place, the Church may simply withdraw from the conflict. She may?simply allow the mighty stream of modern thought to flow by unheeded and do her work merely in the back-eddies?of the current. There are still some men in the world who have been unaffected by modern culture. They may still?be won for Christ without intellectual labour. And they must be won. It is useful, it is necessary work. If the Church?is satisfied with that alone, let her give up the scientific education of her ministry. Let her assume the truth of her?message and learn simply how it may be applied in detail to modern industrial and social conditions. Let her give up?the laborious study of Greek and Hebrew. Let her abandon the scientific study of history to the men of the world. In?a day of increased scientific interest, let the Church go on becoming less scientific. In a day of increased?specialization, of renewed interest in philology and in history, of more rigourous scientific method, let the Church go?on abandoning her Bible to her enemies. They will study it scientifically, rest assured, if the Church does not. Let?her substitute sociology altogether for Hebrew, practical expertness for the proof of her gospel. Let her shorten the?preparation of her ministry, let her permit it to be interrupted yet more and more by premature practical activity. By?doing so she will win a straggler here and there. But her winnings will be but temporary. The great current of?modern culture will sooner or later engulf her puny eddy. God will save her somehow – out of the depths. But the?labour of centuries will have been swept away. God grant that the Church may not resign herself to that. God grant?she may face her problem squarely and bravely. That problem is not easy. It involves the very basis of her faith.?Christianity is the proclamation of an historical fact – that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Modern thought has no?place for that proclamation. It prevents men even from listening to the message. Yet the culture of today cannot?simply be rejected as a whole. It is not like the pagan culture of the first century. It is not wholly non-Christian.?Much of it has been derived directly from the Bible. There are significant movements in it, going to waste, which?might well be used for the defence of the gospel. The situation is complex. Easy wholesale measures are not in?place. Discrimination, investigation is necessary. Some of modern thought must be refuted. The rest must be made?subservient. But nothing in it can be ignored. He that is not with us is against us. Modern culture is a mighty force.?It is either subservient to the gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the gospel. For making it subservient,?religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labour is also necessary. And that labour is being neglected. The?Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her?life.
The situation is desperate. It might discourage us. But not if we are truly Christians. Not if we are living in vital?communion with the risen Lord. If we are really convinced of the truth of our message, then we can proclaim it before a world of enemies, then the very difficulty of our task, the very scarcity of our allies becomes an inspiration,?then we can even rejoice that God did not place us in an easy age, but in a time of doubt and perplexity and battle.?Then, too, we shall not be afraid to call forth other soldiers into the conflict. Instead of making our theological?seminaries merely centres of religious emotion, we shall make them battlegrounds of the faith, where, helped a little?by the experience of Christian teachers, men are taught to fight their own battle, where they come to appreciate the?real strength of the adversary and in the hard school of intellectual struggle learn to substitute for the unthinking faith?of childhood the profound convictions of full-grown men. Let us not fear in this a loss of spiritual power. The?Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it. She is winning victories in the?sphere of material betterment. Such victories are glorious. God save us from the heartless crime of disparaging?them. They are relieving the misery of men. But if they stand alone, I fear they are but temporary. The things which?are seen are temporal; the things which are not seen are eternal. What will become of philanthropy if God be lost??Beneath the surface of life lies a world of spirit. Philosophers have attempted to explore it. Christianity has revealed?its wonders to the simple soul. There lie the springs of the Church’s power. But that spiritual realm cannot be?entered without controversy. And now the Church is shrinking from the conflict. Driven from the spiritual realm by?the current of modern thought, she is consoling herself with things about which there is no dispute. If she favours?better housing for the poor, she need fear no contradiction. She will need all her courage, she will have enemies?enough, God knows. But they will not fight her with argument. The twentieth century, in theory, is agreed on social?betterment. But sin, and death, and salvation, and life, and God – about these things there is debate. You can avoid?the debate if you choose. You need only drift with the current. Preach every Sunday during your Seminary course,?devote the far ends of your time to study and to thought, study about as you studied in college – and these questions?will probably never trouble you. The great questions may easily be avoided. Many preachers are avoiding them.?And many preachers are preaching to the air. The Church is waiting for men of another type. Men to fight her?battles and solve her problems. The hope of finding them is the one great inspiration of a Seminary’s life. They need?not all be men of conspicuous attainments. But they must all be men of thought. They must fight hard against?spiritual and intellectual indolence. Their thinking may be confined to narrow limits. But it must be their own. To?them theology must be something more than a task. It must be a matter of inquiry. It must lead not to successful?memorizing, but to genuine convictions.
The Church is puzzled by the world’s indifference. She is trying to overcome it by adapting her message to the?fashions of the day. But if, instead, before the conflict, she would descend into the secret place of meditation, if by?the clear light of the gospel she would seek an answer not merely to the question of the hour but, first of all, to the?eternal problems of the spiritual world, then perhaps, by God’s grace, through His good Spirit, in His good time, she?might issue forth once more with power, and an age of doubt might be followed by the dawn of an era of faith.