Gordon Clark: Attack on College Christianity (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

1956. Attack on College Christianity. The Southern Presbyterian Journal. Feb. 8: pgs. 5-6.

Attack on College Christianity

By Gordon H. Clark

It may be true that there is little Christianity on the college campuses, but there is too much lor some people. A devious method has been devised and is being put into execution to hamper and eradicate religion from student life. Devious, because at the start one would hardly suspect that Christianity was the object of attack.

Advanced reports have been published concerning a book that is about to make its appearance. The title is, Fraternities Without Brotherhood, the author, Alfred McClung Lee. It is advertised as a study of prejudice on the campus. And the author finds the fraternities full of it.

Now, first of all, let it be understood that this article does not intend to recommend fraternities. They serve a certain useful purpose, but on the whole, when one considers the moral, the religious, and the academic aspects of fraternity life, it seems to the present writer that they are more evil than good. Rut if fraternities are to be criticized, the points of criticism should be just and well founded. False charges should not be filed against them. Nor should other justifiable principles be called into question just because fraternities use or misuse them. That is to say, the evils of fraternities, whatever they may be, should not be made a disguise for restricting religious activity among the students.

This is what the author does. He complains that fraternities choose their members on the basis of race, religion, and national origin. This, if the advanced advertisements are to be trusted, he smears as undemocratic.

Home-grown socialism and collectivism, like its spiritual brother Russian communism, aims to restrict the sphere of personal choice. The aim is to force people to associate with those who most offend them. This breaks up voluntary associations that tend to oppose the course of an all powerful totalitarian state. The technique and policy have been clearly exemplified under the dictatorial governments. Now, it may be that the college fraternities choose as their members persons whom you or I might not care to have as friends; but let us be quite clear that there is nothing "undemocratic" in freely choosing one's own friends. It is the communistic and totalitarian technique to use words, such as democratic, to mean precisely what they do not mean.

The question should be put squarely: what is wrong with selecting one's friends on the basis of their religious beliefs? Why should not "creed" be the basis of membership in a voluntary organization? U creed cannot be used as the basis oi an organized group, how can a church expect to function?

The principle of course can be abused. A fraternity may require its members to say that they are Christians (to exclude Jews) when as a matter of fact the members may be totally pagan. This is of course hypocrisy and must be condemned. But does a hypocritical use of the name Christian justify legislation that prevents the operation of religious groups on the campus?

One college reporter writes, " This reporter can see little difference in accepting a person of another race, color, or creed on its athletic teams — and not into its fraternities." The muddle headed reporter could not even see that he had mis-spoken himself. He meant to say that he could see little difference between accepting a Negro, a Jew, or a Presbyterian on the football team and accepting them in a voluntary organization. He cannot see the difference between a college team which represents the college as a whole, and is therefore open to anyone who is acceptable to the college, and a voluntary organization of Presbyterian students who happen to be attending that college. This is the blindness of the present day totalitarian mind.

The reporter in the same column quotes the Dean of a state university, "No new student organization which restricted its membership by excluding any racial or religious group would be recognized on the campus." Apparently there are already some religious organizations on that campus, and they will not be molested, yet. But all further religious organizations will be banned. Other universities enforce similar or even more stringent regulations.

Who then is undemocratic? A state university is supported by tax money. It is actually a government agency. What is democratic about a tax supported institution legislating against religious groups?

Humanists, atheists, and plain pagans have long complained about the bigotry of Christians. But is there any bigotry to equal the bigotry of the totalitarian, socialistic, collectivist mind of today?