The revelation of J Gresham Machen's 1913 racist letter to his mother and agenda at Princeton Seminary has caused defenders of Machen to justify Machen by making personal attacks on Karl Barth. I'd like to share a brief response. The original source of J. Gresham Machen's racist comments and agenda was a letter shared that he wrote to his mother in 1913, which you may read quotes from here shared by Timothy Isaiah Cho:

J. Gresham Machen's 1913 Letter (Part 1). Click on the tweet to read the thread:

In a letter dated October 5, 1913 to his mother, J. Gresham Machen writes the following...

— Timothy Isaiah Cho (@tisaiahcho) September 3, 2018

J. Gresham Machen's 1913 Letter (Part 2). Click on the tweet to read the thread:

Part II of Machen's letter to his mother, dated October 5, 1913:

"The colored man is at present rooming in Brown(?) Hall. But any time a room is vacant he may move over here. If I am to make any objection now is the time to make it...

— Timothy Isaiah Cho (@tisaiahcho) September 5, 2018

Instead of acknowledging Machen's racist views and agenda were wrong, personal attacks are being made against Karl Barth's private and controversial relationships with Charlotte von Kirschbaum. It's a mixture of ad hominem, blame shifting, and other fallacious arguments. Karl Barth is likely being targeted because many online Barthians are protesting Machen's racist comments and actions at Princeton Seminary described in the 1913 letter. All theologians are sinners, and all of our theological heroes have serious character flaws, and none of these flaws may be justified. (Even the Westminster Confession of Faith admits this).

Machen's racist comments are sinful but these are not private sins but public sins and represent a sinful agenda he actively pursued at Princeton seminary. According to Machen's letter, he actively opposed the integration of a "colored man" to Princeton seminary, and refused "table-companionship" with himself and others at Princeton. Machen expressed his "anger to hear people talking glibly about equal civil rights of negreos". Machen said his primary (only?) opponent to segregation was B. B. Warfield, and said that "I have talked to a number of members of the faculty... they all sympathize with me". Machen argued that his view was supported by "the facts of human nature" and after hours of arguing with Warfield, Machen said in frustration that Warfield was "bitterly lacking in appreciation of human nature".

I'm rehearsing these quotations from Machen's letter to contrast him to Karl Barth. Karl Barth's private relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum is controversial, and the nature of it is speculative, and I've written in depth on this bright and bleak constellation already. The difference between Barth and Machen is that Barth's theology thoroughly opposed adultery and bigamy, and many other sins that Barth is being accused of by uninformed Machen defenders. Barth's own theology of marriage defined marriage as a life partnership between two people in CD III/4, and is an explicit judgment against this accusations of an inappropriate relationship he may or may not have had with Charlotte von Kirschbaum.

J. Gresham Machen on the other hand has been a catalyst for schism in American Reformed and Presbyterian traditions in both seminaries and churches, and it was specifically his agenda to purify the church from what he called "theological liberalism" that in practice included racist tactics. The practical application of Machen's purge of "theological liberalism" in this letter worked out at Princeton seminary is therefore code for white theology and supremacy and schism. Machen's puritanical reforms according to this letter was something he actively and openly pursued at Princeton, and he developed factions at Princeton that supported his racist opposition to integration, and was openly angry with Warfield and those who opposed him. By puritanical, I mean that Machen's defenders share this purifying nature and quest, which is exemplified by the personal attacks on Barth's relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum. If they are seeking to remove all theologians who sin (including Barth), then that is a purifying and divisive agenda. One that is consistent with what Machen said in his letters.

The behavior of Barth is quite contrary to Machen, where Barth remained in the church until the Nazi's forced him to leave, and he actively opposed the Nazis in the Barmen Declaration. Barth also met with Martin Luther King Jr. during his visit to America in the civil rights movement. Instead of acknowledging and appreciate Barth's meeting with MLK, defenders of Machen instead attack MLK's personal sins as well, suggestion that MLK's work is invalidated because it doesn't mean their standards of purity. These defenders of Machen claim that they are only repeating the Apostles Creed and Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), but they are entirely inconsistent; the WCF 6:iv-v says: "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. This corruption of nature during this life doth remain in those that are regenerated." Sometimes this is described as "total depravity" in this orthodox reformed tribalism, and is completely contrary to any puritanical purging of any theologian who sins (or doesn't meet their Reformed orthodox litmus tests). So I do not recognize the WCF and Apostles creed in defenders of Machen's racism comments and agenda.

I’ve never been a fan of Machen, because he along with Cornelius Van Til, is responsible for one of the largest schisms, which created the OPC and WTS. Also his book “Christianity and Liberalism” and Machen’s Warrior Children have been catalysts for schism ever since. Cornelius Van Til (CVT) used Machen’s template of “Christianity and Liberalism” to write “Christianity and Barthianism” to also imply contrast and justify separating from anyone that doesn’t conform to their form of reformed orthodoxy. And so the “theological liberalism” that Machen and his Warrior Children crusaded against, looks very much like a fight to maintain white supremacy in their seminaries and churches.

Ironically while Machen’s Warrior Children among with CVT attacked Barth and Princeton seminary, Barth was visiting with MLK. After Barth’s influence during his visit to America and Princeton in the 1960’s the mainline Presbyterian churches wrote the Confession of 1967, which outline essentially a Barthian view of scriptures. Machen’s heirs known for fundamentalism, which included biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, etc. used this confession to further their schism cause and many Presbyterian churches broke away. Using "theological liberalism" as the justifying point, in the name of fidelity to their ‘orthodoxy’.

It turns out that the true reason for schism was that these churches were unhappy with the mainline Presbyterian church’s embracing of the civil rights movement and they split off because they were forced to stop segregation in their churches. After segregation was outlawed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these churches did not reunite with the mainline Presbyterian churches the spit off from in schism, and instead formed their own denominations (such as the PCA), to prevent any other "theological liberalism" from happening, like desegregation had done. I mentioned the PCA (rather than the OPC that Machen formed), because the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) recently repented of these racist actions committed in the civil rights era. In 2016, the PCA’s GA voted to repent of these racist actions that occurred in the civil rights origins (see here to learn more). The PCA originated out the tradition Machen started through schism, and provides an excellent example of repenting of racism, that I wish Machen's defenders would imitate.

So beware of anyone who invokes fear of "modernists" or "theological liberalism" to justify schism, because history reveals that this may only be the fruit of white supremacy. I celebrate the PCA’s decision to repent of racism, and believe they are setting a good example, especially as I’ve been a member of the PCA in the past. I was unaware of these facts at that time. I wish that Machen defenders would likewise acknowledge the sinful agenda and repent of the greatest schismatics in the history of American Presbyterianism.

On one last note, I was pleased to learn in this 1913 letter that B. B. Warfield frustrated and opposed Machen, and although I criticize his view of inspiration, Warfield has done far more good than bad. George Marsden made an excellent observation on schisms that once the heretics are all gone, then those who remain turn on each other. (Fundamentalism and American Culture). I wish Warfield took a stronger stance against Machen, but his strength was in writing theological essays, not in church politics. 

I'd like to end with a caveat that I have not read the original source letter (that was written in Machen's own handwriting), so I'm willing to retract my comments if the source proves otherwise. 

Sources:

1. Image of J. Gresham Machen source: wikipedia.