![]() Barth also met with Martin Luther King Jr. ![]() 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. One that is consistent with what Machen said in his letters. If they are seeking to remove all theologians who sin (including Barth), then that is a purifying and divisive agenda. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm rehearsing these quotations from Machen's letter to contrast him to Karl Barth. 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". Warfield, and said that "I have talked to a number of members of the faculty. Machen said his primary (only?) opponent to segregation was B. Machen expressed his "anger to hear people talking glibly about equal civil rights of negreos". 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'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. (Even the Westminster Confession of Faith admits this). All theologians are sinners, and all of our theological heroes have serious character flaws, and none of these flaws may be justified. 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. It's a mixture of ad hominem, blame shifting, and other fallacious arguments. 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. If I am to make any objection now is the time to make it. But any time a room is vacant he may move over here. ![]() "The colored man is at present rooming in Brown(?) Hall. Part II of Machen's letter to his mother, dated October 5, 1913: 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: 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |