Gordon Clark: The Next War (The Presbyterian Guardian)

1944. The Next War. The Presbyterian Guardian. Mar. 10, Vol. 13, No. 5, 71-72.

When the present armed conflict ceases, another war now half concealed will become more evident. Quite obviously the economy of all nations will be strained or shattered. And in the wake of social dislocations, not to say chaos, nearly anything is likely to happen. 

One contender will be communism. This is certain, not merely because Russia will emerge from battle with glory, prestige, and power, but also because the communistic philosophy for years has been making its way into the thinking of a vocal minority of aggressive leaders. Communism has at least two easily recognized' advantages. First, it erects tangible, economic gains as the end of personal and national activity. Its materialistic view of good is quickly grasped by the least thoughtful of people while the more spiritual values of other philosophies are harder to appreciate. Second, communism can appeal to political leaders because it presents a detailed system of civilization. Not only does it advocate material values but also it implements itself with definite methods of procedure and works out its problems with the careful accuracy of a blueprint. Therefore the promises of comfort that communism makes to a ruined world are likely to be accepted at face value by despondent people. What matters it, they may say, if freedom. of religion and other intangible nonsense are lost? Religion is only an opiate anyhow. 

Strange as it may seem, the religious leaders of America, in spite of their pacifism and what used to pass for liberalism, abet the cause of communism. For years they have been as pink as scarlet fever, and it is improbable that a deeper , shade of red will cause them much anxiety. And in return, communism will not object too strongly to their form of opiate. Their "religion", a socialistic. and communistic philosophy, is entirely man-centered; and their large control of radio is an excellent screen for the silencing of the God-centered thought that seriously denies the supremacy of man. The modernist church will prate piously about the freedom of worship, and yet at the same time it will classify the freedom to practise religion as a form of class hatred. 

To combat this attack on Christianity, the first step is clear. The basic principles of a God-centered philosophy must be. vigorously asserted in opposition to the .man-centered or humanistic type of thought. Against the sovereignty of man the sovereignty of God must be boldly proclaimed. In place of material well-being, the spiritual values of Christianity must be put in first place. 

An assertion of basic principles, however, is far from sufficient to. stem the tide of humanism and communism. It is relatively easy to make belief in God appear plausible. A general theistic world-view and even an authoritarian revelation can be defended against the charge of inconsistency. However, when all this is done, the theistic world-view will not be convincing to the political, intellectual and social leaders of our day. And the reason that it will fail to convince is that basic principles alone cannot compete with basic principles plus an application in detail. If Christianity is to survive in any large way, the human task - always depending on God's grace - is to apply its principles to all phases of life. 

The radicals have their influential spokesmen in Washington with specific proposals to abridge the. freedom of religion and of the press, with specific, proposals to ruin the financial structure of our country, with specific proposals to alter the administration of justice. 

The Calvinistic Christian has the doctrine of total depravity and may even conclude that power in the hands of' one man or of a few is dangerous to public welfare. Fewer Calvinists have definite ideas on the gold standard. And are there any who can propose or criticise, on the basis of Christian principles, the more detailed points of law? Calvin cannot be accused of paying too little attention to theology, and yet he did not neglect the politics of Geneva. His. descendants today do not need less theology but they do need a Calvinistic law school. 

While the law is important, it is but an illustration of a general need. Another illustration, less pressing though more pleasant, is found in art. The Calvinist has the doctrine of common grace to explain the artistic ability of painters, sculptors, writers, and musicians. But where is the Christian theory of aesthetics, or where is Christian art-criticism? Art is a part of Cod's world - it has its place and purpose. But are these studied and understood by the Christian? Communism has made a rather specific use of art. No one can fail to see the communistic view of American' history in the works of Diego Rivera. This may be the use of art rather than aesthetic theory, but can the Calvinist compete on either score? 

The mention of history reminds one that the great Augustine outlined a Christian philosophy of history. Has it been developed and expanded? Evolution is an antichristian theory of biology - and of sociology too. Are there Christian alternatives, not merely in basic principle but in concrete detail? 

The need of a comprehensive Christian philosophy, shown by these illustrative examples, has been recognized at times. In the Stone lectures of 1898-99 Abraham Kuyper not only saw the need but took steps to meet it. The lectures are excellent, but unfortunately their greatest excellence is that they point out how much has been left undone. Kuyper's chapters are no more than a meager beginning. 

How can this beginning be continued? The educated leadership of the country has passed through an education that is basically and in detail opposed to Christianity. Most Christians are unaware of the extent to which they themselves have received pagan ideas. Practically everything that appears in print is in the broad sense humanistic. Such a situation shows clearly what is needed. A center of Christian learning must be established in which investigation in all fields of study will be pursued. A Christian college is not sufficient. Several Christian colleges exist at the present time. Some do respectable work; some are rather incompetent. A list of the faculty's publications is the, criterion. And there is enough room in the country for other Christian colleges, if they are to be competent. But the greater need is the need of a university. This includes a law school, as the preceding remarks have indicated; it must include a graduate school for the granting of the doctorate; and it must be administered by a faculty which through research, mutual criticism, and publication will develop the philosophy to coordinate Christian thought and action. 

Conservative Protestantism has shown all too little zeal in defending, the faith. A defeatist attitude induces surrender before the world's problems. Some supposedly devout fundamentalists openly advocate withdrawing into their little groups and refraining from meeting scholarly opposition The Romanists have adopted a different course. They give evidence of being deeply convinced of the truth of their system, and they are not too lazy to expand it by well-written volumes. They have their centers of learning and they have an organized body of knowledge. Roman zeal puts the fundamentalists to shame, and Roman gains imperil our Christian liberties. 

Since Protestantism is already so far behind in the race, no additional time should be lost. The recently announced temporary committee to form a Christian University Association should proceed as quickly as possible to charter a corporation, to collect subscriptions, equipment, and a library, and to recruit a competent and fully qualified faculty. Then, when the present armed conflict ceases, the Christian university would be ready to open its doors and wage successful war in the battle for God-centered truth.