On the whole, Machen’s work is commendable and worthy of emulation in several respects. The first area of strength in this treatise that perhaps could go unnoticed in light of more explicit strengths, is Machen’s courage to deal with this particular issue. It is rarely ever easy to approach controversy and deal with important theological issues head on. It will often bring severe reaction from opponents, anger from those who misunderstand your arguments or your intentions, and a whole host of other relational problems. But Machen takes on this issue of liberalism’s abandonment of Biblical Christianity with clarity and a forthright handling of the issues. There is no question what he thinks—he is honest and straightforward about his deep concerns for the liberal position and, out of love for Christ’s church (the kind of love that does not rejoice in unrighteousness – I Corinthians 13:6), seeks to establish an easily discernible portrayal of the massive divide between true Christianity and liberalism. He does not want confusion to settle in at any level.

A second strength of this book, and a strength that needs to be considered directly after the reflection of Machen’s courage, is Machen’s fair handling of the liberal position. Machen, it is obvious, does not love controversy for the sake of controversy; he loves truth, and therefore is compelled to establish the truth where it has been undermined. It would be contradictory for Machen to misrepresent the liberal position if he believes it is the liberal position that is misrepresenting the Biblical position. Machen does not blanket the liberal position with a simplistic “That is wrong, this is right” approach. Rather, he seeks to go deep into the liberal position, and while affirming the truths of their position, the brilliance of their argument (in some cases) and the nobility of their intentions, he demonstrates from history, logic, and Scripture why their particular position is wrong. Machen does not make ad hominem attacks on those of the liberal persuasion—he deals with arguments primarily, not people.

Machen will even welcome objections insofar as they help better establish the truth. This, I think, is a mark of tremendous spiritual maturity and keen discernment. He is not afraid of opposing arguments; he is confident that the truth will stand. For example, in the discussion of the nature of Christ’s humanity, Machen argues that one cannot model his religious life exactly according to Jesus’ religious life, since Jesus, unlike us, did not have to deal with the issue of sin in His relationship with God. The objection to this is that Christ can no longer be considered our “Brother” and “Example.” Machen replies, not by blasting such a notion, but rather by saying, “The objection is welcome, since it helps us to avoid misunderstandings and exaggerations. Certainly if our zeal for the greatness and uniqueness of Jesus led us so to separate Him from us that He could no longer be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, the result would be disastrous; Jesus’ coming would lose much of its significance” (92). Here Machen exemplifies Paul’s instruction to “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21).

However, I think it is necessary, and specifically at this point, to highlight a particular weakness in Machen’s work; namely, his lack of providing exact quotes and citations. Granted, Machen’s work is not a doctoral dissertation—it is intended to be read and digested by the general Christian public and particularly Church leaders, not a small circle of academicians who (rightly so) insist on very strict referencing of resources. But Machen’s work, because it is polemic in nature and deals with opposing arguments, loses some strength because it does not demonstrate, thoroughly enough, from where these arguments originate. There are citations in the book; do not misunderstand me. But they are often times not specific enough, and I think it is here that Machen’s book could be improved. Toward the end of the book, Machen indicates that he has been listening to the sermons and reading the books of “recent liberal preachers.” His conclusion about these men are that they are “untroubled by the problem of sin, so devoid of all sympathy for a guilty humanity [and] prone to abuse and ridicule the things dearest to the heart of every Christian man” (173). These are serious indictments. How much more powerful his argument, perhaps, if we could have seen citations and exact quotes from the liberal point of view that led to these stinging conclusions.

It is easy to read a polemic work and immediately dismiss it because the reader is afraid that the opposing view is not well represented. Machen, though I do think he was fair in his overall approach to the liberal position—he is careful to recognize and acknowledge truth and solid argument when he finds it—I think he could have better guarded himself from other readers forming a prejudice against his book by more precisely citing his sources and by providing a larger number of exact quotations.

Next: Conclusion