Today I am building upon the excellent writing and shepherding of Johnny Zacchio Jr. and Joseph Yu in order to consider the true mission of the Church and how it differs between historic, orthodox Christianity and Theological Liberalism. I’ll be doing this with J. Gresham Machen’s book, “Christianity and Liberalism.”
Two Totally Different Animals
Every so often I hear someone say, “Man, I just hate labels. Why are there so many labels? I’m not X; I’m just me.” And I chuckle to myself because sure, let’s not perseverate on our Enneagram number, Myers-Briggs combination, or whether or not we are Extroverts or Gregarious Introverts. But also, labels exist for a reason. Labels take a four-legged piece of furniture where people eat food and call it a table.
Labeling, or naming, is exactly what J. Gresham Machen did in his groundbreaking book, Christianity and Liberalism. Published in 1923, Machen’s book became one of the defining orthodox Christian critiques of Theological Liberalism, and its central argument remains remarkably pertinent now, more than 100 years later. Machen, a Presbyterian minister, encountered a strange doctrinal creature he eventually called Theological Liberalism. He observed its habits, identified its features, and gave it a name. He labeled it and then described many of its characteristics in his book.
That is what makes Machen so useful to us now. He helps us recognize that strange “Christian” animal that has learned to occupy Christian territory and speak the Christian language. Machen’s great contention, however, is that Christianity and Liberalism are not different breeds of the same animal but that they are different animals altogether—as is the case with a dolphin and a shark. And if this is true, then we should expect them to have fundamentally different understandings of what Christians are here to do. That is, Christianity and Theological Liberalism have fundamentally different definitions of “mission.”
What Do We Mean by Mission?
In our post-Christian American culture, the concept of “mission work” seems clear and universal: Doctors Without Borders sends medical professionals on “missions”; my Muslim friends speak of their medical “missions”; the LDS gentlemen who came to my door were on their “mission.” Theologically Liberal Christians have their mission, too, as do historic, orthodox Christians.
But clearly, then, the word itself tells us very little. We must press for definitions: What is the biblical mission of the historic, orthodox Christian Church?
First, What Is the Church?
But first, what is the historic, orthodox Christian Church? How can we know the mission of the church if we don’t even know what she is? This is a critical question because— as I’m sure you’ve already guessed— historic Christians and Theologically Liberal Christians do not agree on the Church.
Historic, orthodox Christians maintain that the Church is the redeemed people of God in all places and throughout time. Christ has entrusted his Church with the proclamation and preservation of the gospel, making her “a pillar and buttress of the truth.”1 This gospel can be succinctly stated in the words of St. Paul: Christ died for our sins, was buried, raised, and appeared to many witnesses, and so if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.2 The Church is also a divinely ordained institution with officers, government, discipline, and sacraments established according to the Word of God.
In addition to primary doctrines, the historic, orthodox Church defends and upholds primary practices. These practices include the sanctity of life, and sexual ethics, as these positions are taught in the Law of Moses, the Council in Jerusalem, and the New Testament epistles. In summary, the Church has explicitly defined beliefs and practices.
Equally important here is to see what the Church is not. The Church is not simply a collection of Christians doing good things. The Church is not some amorphous, altruistic organization or the fourth branch of the government. It is something Jesus established, commissioned, and entrusted with particular responsibilities and with certain boundaries called doctrines and practices.
Which Brotherhood?
With all this being said, the Church also faithfully recognizes a synonymous title: the Brotherhood of Believers. And again, classical Theological Liberalism has historically recognized its own counterfeit: the Universal Brotherhood. Machen writes:
Very different is this Christian concept of brotherhood from the liberal doctrine of the “brotherhood of man.” Modern liberal doctrine holds that all men everywhere, no matter their race or creed, are brothers.3
Machen concedes that there is a sense in which all Christians can affirm this, since all people share the same Creator and the same human nature. But Christianity also recognizes a relationship far more intimate than our shared humanity—a relationship for which Machen (and Jesus4) reserves the word brother:
The true brotherhood, according to Christian teaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed.5
The Lord gathers for Himself one people from every nation and tongue, place and time, socio-economic status and political conviction. Through one Spirit and one baptism, He makes them one people, one Body—one Family of Redeemed people. And this distinction matters enormously for the mission. Christianity does not merely seek the temporal improvement of humanity; it seeks the redemption of human beings and their adoption into the Family of God. If that is true—if it stirs your soul to worship, if it rouses your affections for the LORD and His family—then there is only one response.
The Main Emphasis
I could, of course, quote Scripture to illuminate our one right response to the worship and adoration of the One, True and Living God. But instead, I’m going to quote Machen:
If we [Christians] really love our fellowmen we shall never be content with binding up their wounds or pouring on oil and wine or rendering them any such lesser service. We shall indeed do such things for them. But the main emphasis of our lives will be to bring them to the Saviour of their souls.6
And why should this be the great emphasis of our lives? Why is it not enough to bind wounds, pour oil, provide housing and soup? Because in bringing someone to the Savior, we seek something greater than his temporal flourishing. We seek his eternal adoption into the Family of God.
And it is through this family that God has ordained to carry his gospel into the world. His ambassadors proclaim his ministry of reconciliation, calling sinners to be reconciled to God and, igual n him, to one another. Here, then, we arrive at one of Machen’s most polemical claims: the Christian’s hope for society rests not ultimately in the improvement of society, but in the growth of this strange and supernatural family.
Again, I give you the penetrating words of Machen:
It is upon this brotherhood of the redeemed that the Christian founds the hope of society. He finds no solid hope in the improvement of earthly conditions, or the molding of human institutions under the influence of the Golden Rule. . . . These things may so palliate the symptoms of sin that there may be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produce conditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospel message; they are even valuable for their own sake. . . . But in themselves their value, to the Christian, is certainly small.7
So we see that the Christian does not hope in political reform. The Christian does not hope in soup kitchens and shelters, storytelling and systemic improvements. Those things have value— both in and of themselves and in that they prepare the soil for the seed of the gospel. And yet the Christian’s hope for the country, for the city, for the vulnerable is Jesus. And it is the Christian’s hope in Jesus that gives rise to his mission: he seeks to make more brothers for the glory of His Father. That is, those who have received the gospel will carry that same gospel to others.
Machen again states the answer so beautifully:
Christian men have been redeemed from sin, without merit of their own, by the sacrifice of Christ. But every man who has been truly redeemed from sin longs to carry to others the same blessed gospel through which he himself has been saved. . . . The propagation of the gospel is clearly the joy as well as the duty of every Christian man.8
Theological Liberals do not believe this, of course. Or at least, not the modern iteration: Progressive Christianity. Their hope is not in Jesus for the redemption of sins. Their hope is in a diminished Jesus who once made the world a better place by resisting unjust government systems, caring for the vulnerable, and bucking religious systems. Their mission is to go and do likewise. And then there’s this: having tasted social liberalism and American prosperity, they have found those things to be very good. And so their desire is for all to be as socially liberal and prosperous as they are, which is their own version of the Golden Rule: to treat others the way you want to be treated. What more could possibly be needed?
However, historic, orthodox Christians believe much more is needed: namely, salvation. Historic, orthodox Christians do believe that Jesus and Jesus alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. They look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. They do not fear the one who kills the body but cannot kill the soul. Therefore, they seek the salvation of souls at all costs! In hunger, thirst, nakedness, and imprisonment, they endure everything for the sake of exalting the Name of Jesus in all the earth!
And here our two animals reveal themselves. Both speak of Jesus. Both speak of love. Both speak of mission. But they do these things for two fundamentally different reasons. In sum, these are two different Christs, two different hopes, two totally different and incompatible belief systems and, therefore, simply two different missions.
So, What Do Christians Do Now?
The most obvious answer is to go and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them all that Jesus instructed, because repentance for the forgiveness of sins must be preached in Jesus’ name to all nations. In this way, we are ambassadors of Christ proclaiming his ministry of reconciliation.
And these are, of course, good answers. But to stay on theme, let us consider this: if the Church is to remain faithful to her mission, especially in the face of a heretical Christianity, she must also guard the gospel she has been commissioned to proclaim. So what would Machen have Christians do to preserve the Church as the Church and thereby keep her faithful to her mission? Machen advised these four things:
Christians should encourage those engaging in the intellectual and spiritual struggle.9 The truth of the gospel cannot be stated clearly without being set against error; both the truth and the lie must come to light. That is, in pronouncing truth we inevitably confront falsehood. As Machen put it, “Thus a large part of the New Testament was polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by the errors which had arisen in the church.10” And likewise, “God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.11”
Christians should perform their duty in deciding upon the qualifications of candidates for the ministry.12 In 2 Timothy 2:2, St. Paul told Timothy to entrust the gospel to qualified men; then he went on to outline what makes a man qualified. Likewise, the Bible specifies the qualifications for leaders in the Church. Machen is saying that historic, orthodox Christians need to step up and make sure the candidates for ministry meet the most basic qualifications for that ministry. He writes, “It is strange how in the interests of an utterly false kindness to men, Christians are sometimes willing to relinquish their loyalty to the crucified Lord.13”
Christians should show their loyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of individual congregations.14 This point is very similar to the one above except that, in the book, it references the lay person’s responsibility to choose a doctrinally sound pastor: “The issue often arises in connection with the choice of a pastor. Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? . . . God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be fired with the Cross!15”
Christians must pursue a renewal of Christian education.16 Theological Liberalism teaches that Christianity is a life, not a doctrine—which, of course, is ridiculous; Christianity is absolutely a set of doctrines and practices, and they absolutely form the Christian life. In short, the doctrines and practices of the Church give her her shape. It is this abandonment of Church doctrines and history that has given rise to ignorance in the Church: “The growth of ignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine.17” Machen continues, “It must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family. . . . Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is.”
These are strong, necessary words for these concerningly ambiguous times. Progressive Christianity— our modern iteration of Theological Liberalism— while not new, has received fresh recognition and support in the national news coverage of politician and Presbyterian minister James Talarico. The man uses Bible verses, not to point to the supremacy of Jesus, but to behavior. He rejects the doctrines and practices that define the Church.18 He hollows out the Christian language.19 He preaches a salvation by works, and all this to overwhelming applause.20 It is as Johnny Zacchio Jr. wrote at the start of this series:
One may think of Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, James Talarico, who brings to the table a different “kind of Christianity.” J. David Goodman wrote recently in the New York Times, “Are Texans ready for Talarico’s kind of Christianity?”21
What kind is this? It is theological liberalism with the crisp wrapping paper of “Progressivism.”22
And yet—and yet!—we are not those who shrink back. We are not without hope. There is no room in the Christian life for despair, Machen writes. “Only our hopefulness should not be founded on the sand. It should be founded, not upon blind ignorance of the danger, but solely on the precious promises of God. Laymen, as well as ministers, should return in these trying days, with new earnestness, to the study of the Word of God.23” And yet he also conceded that our souls are tired, that we can only do our duty in humility and in sole reliance upon the Savior.
And so if that’s you— if you’re weary with the defense and looking for refreshment, if you’re looking for a fresh vision of the Church and her mission—I bless you with this Benediction: our caution and our encouragement.
Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of secret place of meditation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problems of sin. . . Thus the warfare of the world has entered into the house of God. And sad indeed is the heart of the man who has come seeking peace…
Is there no place where two or three can gather in Jesus’s name, to forget for the moment all those things that divide nation for nation and race from race, to forget human pride, to forget passions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial strife, and to unite it in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? If there by such a place, then that is the house of God and that the gate of heaven. And from under the threshold of that house will go forth a river that will revive the weary world.24
1 Timothy 3:15
1 Corinthians 15:3–7; Romans 10:9
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 133
Matthew 12:50
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 134
Ibid.
Ibid.
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 144
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 146
Ibid.
Ibid.
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 147
Ibid.
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 148
Ibid.
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 148-149
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 149
Recalling advice from a childhood pastor, Talarico said, “Religious symbols are like aspirin: In order to work, they have to dissolve. They point beyond themselves.” https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-james-talarico.html
Mary “had to give consent:” https://www.americamagazine.org/short-take/2026/03/25/james-talarico-abortion-annunciation/ and Atheists Are Christ-Like: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/james-talarico-says-atheists-more-christ-like-than-christian-colleagues
https://www.christianpost.com/news/talarico-tells-crowd-christians-are-saved-by-healing-the-sick.html
J. David Goodman, Are Texans Ready for Talarico’s Kind of Christianity?, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/us/politics/james-talarico-christian.html
Some may object: didn’t he say, “I don’t believe in a progressive or conservative Christianity. I believe in a biblical Christianity. My faith is rooted in scripture and in the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Sure. And yet, in a recent debate on transgender ideology, Talarico (a former Presbyterian seminarian in the PCUSA) stated, “God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.”
Additionally, he stated on Joe Rogan that God required consent from Mary to have the baby Jesus, twisting the story in Luke 1:30-38, arguing for abortion rights.
In a viral sermon where he sought to eliminate the gender binary in favor of transgenderism, Talarico quoted from the non-canonical gospel of Thomas, which quotes Jesus saying, “When you make the male and female one and the same…then you will enter the kingdom of God.”
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 150-151
Machen, J. G. (2009). . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 151-152
