In Volume 15 of Ordained Servant¹, D. G. Hart and John R. Muether point out an interesting piece of Presbyterian history. In 1926, J. Gresham Machen was nominated to be Princeton Seminary’s professor of apologetics - a routine measure that raised an unusual amount of opposition. The opposition was not related to Machen’s abilities in the field of apologetics, but to his position on Prohibition.

Machen opposed Presbyterian support for Prohibition, however, not because he approved of drunkenness or preferred unpopularity. Rather he did so for important theological - even Reformed - reasons. […] Machen argued that the church had no legitimate rationale taking a side in this political question. Aside from the question of the relations between church and state, he believed that the church was bound by the Word of God and so all of its declarations and resolutions had to have clear Scriptural warrant. The Bible did not, however, provide support for Prohibition. It taught the idea of temperance, that is, moderate consumption of alcohol and the other good things of God’s creation. This meant that Scripture forbade inebriation. But even here the Bible did not give directions to government officials for abolishing drunkenness.

Since the Bible did not answer the questions surrounding this issue, Machen was unwilling to give his support along with many in the denomination. Hart and Muether helpfully observe the extension of the Regulative Principle in this episode. Typically we think of the principle solely in public worship terms, however

just as important is what it teaches about liberty of conscience and the Lordship of Christ. As the Confession of Faith teaches (20.2), “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” To bind the consciences of believers only on the basis of teaching of Scripture is to recognize and extend Christ’s Lordship. But to do so only on the basis of human wisdom or preference is to usurp his rule.

The journal is available from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I also refer you to Hart and Muether’s

• With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship

as well as Hart’s books

• Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America
• A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State

for related discussions.

1. The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Ordained Servant, Volume 15, 2006.↩

– Guest blogger R. Jason Pickard –

In our day and age church membership seems to have been down played by most. In college all I had to do to join my church was walk down the aisle, assure them I had been baptized the proper way, sign a sheet of paper, and be introduced to the congregation. No one really even made sure my profession of faith was credible. No one explained to me the importance of the local church either. I guess most, in our anti-authoritarian culture, would say they have no right to give those who desire membership a more thorough examination. As long as I say I am a Christian that is good enough, right? If I am pressed to say more, well than I will just go down the street and join the other church that does not get too personal.

However, Church membership is no small thing. It is very important, in fact vital to Christianity. I believe this because the Church holds the keys to the Kingdom of God. Now, this is important because if you want entrance into a place that is locked, you must have the keys that unlock the door. If you want into the Kingdom of God, you better go to the Church because she holds the keys. What are these keys of the Kingdom? The Heidelberg Catechism, question 83, answers, “The preaching of the holy gospel and Christian discipline toward repentance (are the keys). Both preaching and discipline open the kingdom of heaven to believers and close it to unbelievers.” (For the sake of space I will not quote questions 84 and 85, but I refer you to there for further clarification of how preaching and discipline open and close the Kingdom.)
(Continue Reading…)

Although the postmodern constituency would have us do away with the modern world view, Western civilization still has the characteristics of modernity. Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton argue for the case that Western civilization serves three dominant idols which serve to make sense of modernity by orienting the dominant culture around a common set of goals. The three idols, or gods of our age, Walsh and Middleton propose are 1) scientism 2) technicism, and 3) economism.

Scientism

Scientism is the ability to understand and control nature. The modern world view believes human reason, especially operating within the scientific method, can achieve exhaustive knowledge. It is very much a faith in science as a tool of autonomous reason over against faith in a sovereign God. As Francis Bacon said “knowledge is power.”

…from the beginning of the modern era until today, the conscious purpose of science has been the utilitarian manipulation of the world-machine for human ends. By continuously applying science, the modern creed confesses, we progress steadily toward an earthly utopia, a millennial age of our own making.¹

Technicism

Technicism very much builds upon the foundation scientism creates. Technicism is the “formative, technological mastery of nature… It translates scientific discovery into human power.”² This idol is very much present in our society. In fact, we label other countries according to their level of technological advancement (i.e. “third world”, etc.). Technicism marks a shift from the hope of technological advancement to a belief in its inevitability. Progress is guaranteed and autonomous reason operates through scientism to produce technology used to master our environment.

While scientism holds out the promise of omniscience, technicism offers us omnipotence. Modern humanity has come to believe in the unlimited (and thus unnormed) advance of science and technology, regardless of the consequences - social, environmental or psychological. We have come to believe that if it can be known, it must be known; and if it can be made, it must be made.³

Economism

The third god of this age proposed by Walsh and Middleton is economism. Simply put, economism is the use of technology for profit maximization. To the corporation, the stock price is never high enough. There is no level that is satisfactory. It is an unending quest for wealth that never satisfies.

We believe in the promise of the golden god, and it has driven us to servile devotion because its promise is greatest of all. While scientism offered omniscience and technicism provided omnipotence, the god of economism (the absolutization of mankind’s good ability to make economic choices) extends to all who listen the breathtaking promise of full and glorious material prosperity - nothing short of secular salvation. “Consume and see that this god is good.”⁴

1. Walsh, Brian J. and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 133.↩
2. Ibid., 133.↩
3. Ibid., 135. Emphasis original.↩
4. Ibid., 138. Emphasis original.↩