J. Gresham Machen on Confessional Subscription

Not a fundamentalist in holding to the Westminster Standards

I recently wrote about the various approaches to confessional subscription and how these approaches are represented in the PCA. To summarize briefly, there are 4-5 approaches to confessional subscription ranging from 1) absolute (officers must affirm every doctrine and word of the Westminster Standards) on one end of the spectrum to 4) loose/substance (officers must affirm what they deem to be the core doctrines) on the other. In between these extremes are two or three middle views that have been present in the PCA from its inception: 2) “strict/full subscription” where every doctrine but not every word of the Standards must be affirmed, 3) “essential to the Presbyterian and Reformed system subscription” where only the doctrines fundamental to the P&R system must be affirmed and differences must be stated to the Presbytery but officers may teach granted exceptions, and 2.5) some novel view between these two where exceptions to doctrines may be taken but not taught. Historically, view 3 has been dominant in the PCA in particular and in American Presbyterianism since the Adopting Act of 1729 generally.

For the past several years, some very prominent and persistent voices in the PCA have appealed to J. Gresham Machen as a needed voice for our time. These voices suggest that the PCA is in danger of a similar doctrinal drift into liberalism that the Northern Presbyterian Church in Machen’s day experienced because of, what they perceive to be, latitude in the PCA with regard to confessional subscription. These voices suggest the PCA stands at a crossroads, and they suggest the path forward that will solve this supposed existential crisis is to return to and enforce a strict or full subscription approach.

A key problem with this narrative lies in the fact that Machen did not take this approach to the confessional standards because that is not how the Old School Presbyterians ever approached confessional subscription¹ and because the problem with the Northern Presbyterian Church was its adoption of modernism and the rejection of the Church’s historic view of Scripture as the infallible and inerrant Word of God, which simply doesn’t map on to the PCA today.²

Which view of confessional subscription did Machen believe and practice?

To answer this question, I will summarize some of the material in a journal article by Dr. J.V. Fesko.³ I strongly encourage you to read that article for yourself.

We do not have to guess or read the entirety of Machen’s work to get our answer. While it’s likely that Machen himself took no doctrinal exceptions to the Westminister Standards, it’s clear from his own words and leadership in the formation of the OPC that he believed officers should be granted exceptions to doctrines (not just wording) that do not strike at the fundamentals of the Presbyterian and Reformed system and that they should be allowed to teach these exceptions. We know this because of how he approached the question of premillennialism.

When the OPC (then called the Presbyterian Church in America) was formed in 1936, many ministers held to a premillennial view of the end times and the return of Christ. Machen disagreed with this position personally and he believed this view fell outside of the Westminster Standards: “It is true, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms teach not the Premillennial view but a view that is opposed to the Premillennial view. That is particularly plain in the Larger Catechism.”⁴ Notice that Machen is not simply saying premillennialism isn’t taught by the Standards but could be consistent with it. Rather, he explicitly states that premillennialism is ruled out and opposed by the Standards. This means that an officer with a premillennial view would have to be granted an exception not just to the wording of the Standards but to one of its doctrines.

However, Machen did not believe this exception should disqualify a man from office in the OPC. Why? Because he held the historic view of confessional subscription, that is, officers must subscribe to the Presbyterian and Reformed system of doctrine contained in the Standards but not to every single doctrine of the Standards. He writes:

Subscription to the Westminster Standards in the Presbyterian Church of America is not to every word in those Standards, but only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain. The real question, then, is whether a person who holds the Premillennial view can hold that system. Can a person who holds the Premillennial view be a true Calvinist; can he, in other words, hold truly to the Calvinistic or Reformed system of doctrine which is set forth in the Westminster Standards? We think that he can; and for that reason we think that Premillennialists as well as those who hold the opposing view may become ministers or elders or deacons in The Presbyterian Church of America. We think that a man who holds that the return of Christ and the final judgment take place not in one act, as the Westminster Standards contemplate them as doing, but in two acts with a thousand-year reign of Christ upon the earth in between, yet may honestly say that he holds the system of doctrine that the Standards contain.⁵

Fesko adds a clarifying comment to avoid confusion about which view of confessional subscription Machen was operating with:

“Now, in case there is any confusion regarding Machen’s phrase that subscribers need not receive “every word in those Standards,” his position is not that of S/K but that of Hodge and Warfield. This is clear from the fact that Machen is allowing a position that is not merely a semantic disagreement but a substantive contradiction to the Standards.”⁶

The position Fesko calls “S/K” is that of Morton Smith and George McKnight who held to the strict/full subscription view (view 2). Machen clearly stood opposed to viewing every doctrine of the Standards as equally important for ordination and situated himself firmly in the historic view (view 3) with Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield: “It is no new thing to take this position regarding creed-subscription. It is the position which has long been takenby orthodox Calvinistic theologians.”⁷

Again, it’s important to point out the distinction between personally holding to every doctrine of the Standards and believing that all officers must hold to every doctrine. It’s probably the case that personally Machen fully subscribed, but it does not follow that he believed this was necessary for ordination. His words and actions demonstrate otherwise.

Machen the Fundamentalist?

Many have taken issue with how the word '“fundamentalist” is used today because it can be used in a derogatory way to suggest someone is uneducated and ignorant. But as I have said elsewhere, the word can mean different things depending on the context and use. In one sense, I’m a fundamentalist in that I believe the five fundamentals of the Christian faith that were in question during the modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the earthy 20th century. Machen was a fundamentalist in this regard. He saw the core, essential doctrines of the Christian faith under attack, and he united with other Christians to fight to defend them and to preserve the church. This was necessary and therefore a good fight.

But the term has also been used to describe not what people believe but how they hold what they believe. In this sense, the word isn’t meant to demean a person by suggesting he is uneducated or ignorant, but it is a negative descriptor for a person prone to fighting because he consistently fails to distinguish between the varying levels of doctrinal importance.⁸ A fundamentalist can be so because he holds all or most doctrines as equally important and therefore fights and divides from other Christians or even others in his denomination over tertiary matters. In this sense, Machen was clearly NOT a fundamentalist, at least not compared to those in the PCA today pushing the full/strict subscription view. Machen recognized that some doctrines are essential to the Christian faith, that others are fundamental to the Presbyterian and Reformed system, and still others are tertiary matters that, while still important, do not need to divide a denomination.⁹

To further clarify, two people might hold to the exact same position on all doctrinal matters in the Westminster Standards but differ in how tightly they hold to those doctrines and how they think those doctrinal positions should impact their connection to other Christians and others in their denomination.

What to Make of Machen and the PCA

In my view, many in the PCA today are confused about their agreement with Machen. They see him as a man that fully subscribed to the Standards and conclude that he shared their desire to bring about confessional uniformity in the PCA. As a result, they look at how Machen fought against the liberalism of his day, a fight for Christianity itself, and they map that onto the minor disagreements we’re having in the PCA today. The result is that officers are battling in the PCA with the heat and urgency of the crisis in the 1920s. I’ve seen this on the floor of my presbytery, at General Assembly, and in the FB groups populated by PCA elders. Many men are unwilling or incapable of recognizing that not every disagreement is an existential threat to our denomination or to Christianity.

My hope is that we’ve entered a calmer season in the PCA where the anxiety has lowered and officers are able to step back and consider with more clarity what sorts of disagreements actually exist and the level of importance these disagreements carry. If we look to Machen for guidance, we will certainly learn that there is indeed a time to fight, but we’ll also learn that some doctrinal questions are not appropriate to fight and divide over. Machen was a fundamentalist when it comes to holding to and fighting for the essentials of the Christian faith, but he wasn’t a fundamentalist in regard to the Westminister Standards. He recognized varying levels of importance within the Confession and Catechisms and believed there was room for exceptions to be taken without destroying the unity of a Presbyterian denomination.

1. See Hodge, Charles. The Church and Its Polity. “The Adoption of the Confession” in chapter 14, section 7, pages 317ff.

2. To my knowledge, no officer in the PCA has ever argued for or been granted an exception on the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. These doctrines are fundamental to the Presbyterian and Reformed system and, therefore, to our denominational unity and identity.

3. Fesko, J.V. “The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC” JETS, vol 46/6 (December 2003), 673-698.

4. J. Gresham Machen, “Premillennialism,” The Presbyterian Guardian 3/2 (24 October 1936) 45.

5. Ibid.

6. Fesko, “The Legacy of Old School Confession Subscription in the OPC”, p688.

7. Machen, “Premillennialism,” 45.

8. Tim Keller uses the term fundamentalist in a similar way in his essay “The Decline and Renewal of the American Church” (page 29) where he says: “Fundamentalism is an over-combative moralism, seasoned with anti-intellectualism, intense individualism, and an uncritical attitude toward traditional culture.”

9. I have written more about levels of doctrinal importance here.