Book Review: Scripturalism and the Senses (Part 1)

As someone whose own thinking has benefited and developed from Gordon Clark’s epistemological system called Scripturalism and has advocated for like-minded people to look to the future, every so often, I tend to review a book, article, or audio which either criticizes or attempts to correct the thinking of Gordon Clark (see here, here, here, or here, for just a few examples). Sometimes this is due to my own curiosity, and sometimes it is at the request of a friend.

Last year, I briefly skimmed through a book on Kindle Unlimited called, Scripturalism and the Senses: Reviving Gordon H. Clark's Apologetic. This book was written by Shawn Lazar, an author of whom I have not otherwise heard. Beyond noticing very slight similarities to my own thoughts on developing Scripturalism, which it seems the author arrived at independently, I didn’t remember the book until a friend recently asked my opinion of it. So I decided to revisit the book, review it after all, and here we are. 

The first five chapters of Mr. Lazar's book are an attempted exposition and evaluation of Gordon Clark's epistemology on its own terms (subsumed under the heading, "Why Did Scripturalism Fail?"), with the remainder of the book seeking to improve upon Scripturalism ("How Can Scripturalism Be Revived?"). I read and formed initial notes of the book in three days, so it was not at all a chore to read. There are some good points made by Mr. Lazar, and I will try to be fair in highlighting at what points I believe he is correct. At the same time, I do not believe the book, as a whole, accurately depicts Clark's published thought. The book is 15 chapters (including the Introduction, Conclusion, and an Appendix), and I will engage each chapter at points I find significant. 

In the remainder of this post, I will only examine Mr. Lazar's Introduction. My notes became longer than I had originally anticipated – in part because, for various reasons, it has been quite some time since I have consciously thought about Scripturalism. So I have decided that I will edit and reproduce my notes in separate posts corresponding to each chapter. I hope the author takes any disagreement with the same charity I will try to remember to display throughout this review.

Introduction

Mr. Lazar's main point here seems to be that Gordon Clark "had many admirers, but few followers." In my experience, this evaluation has been correct. There are few people who have followed Clark, and there are fewer who follow him in all his thought (which would be tricky, as it appears, as I will endeavor to show in future posts, that Clark himself changed his mind on certain subjects). 

Now, I don't know that Clark himself wanted people to follow him per se. Clark likely would have hoped to play a role in convincing people that what he taught was true, but I also would expect Clark would have applied the 1 Corinthians 3:4-7 principle to himself. Just as Mr. Lazar states the book is written mostly for his own benefit (and this entire blog is mostly for my own), I think Clark would have accepted that certain ideas he presented were open to correction or development.

Mr. Lazar probably would agree with this. If so, however, then even if or though Clark has convinced few people – and before we count this criticism as a given, let us remember that there is a history ahead of us left to be revealed (perhaps Scripturalism will prove more influential than first glance) – I doubt this would have much affected Clark, as he was more concerned with truth rather than popularity. I do not mean to accuse Mr. Lazar of thinking otherwise, but I think it bears explicit emphasis that Clark himself may have preferred that Mr. Lazar's introduction be solely aimed against the truth of his beliefs rather than the influence of them. As a consistent Calvinist, Clark (and Mr. Lazar) must recognize that only the Holy Spirit actually convicts sinful minds. This is just a minor suggestion.

One other consideration regarding his Introduction that I want to address – and I could be reading too far into this – is that Mr. Lazar seems torn about how to present his position. Should his suggested modifications be regarded as on a continuum of Scripturalism or a departure from it? He decides to split the difference and call his reformulation "Neo-Scripturalism," although he states that he will continue to "think of it as Scripturalism."

I am sympathetic to this dilemma. I too have benefitted from Clark in many ways, yet I find myself in some disagreement with him, even regarding epistemological considerations. Should we consider disagreement with Clark to be a reason to be dissuaded from identifying with Scripturalism? Are we still Scripturalists if we try to "improve" Clark's thought? We would not want to be dishonest in our disagreement with Clark, and yet the spirit of what he intended to communicate seems to resonate.

How I currently have come to a resolution of this dilemma is through consideration of the following question: is "Scripturalism" Gordon Clark's brainchild? Is it merely a descriptor of those who agree with Clark? In this case, divergence from Clark would be the decisive factor upon which we ought to own our disagreement and abandon the title. I doubt this is how Clark would have wanted us to view matters. 

If, however, "Scripturalism" is rather an appropriate title for a prescribed theory of knowledge which Clark discovered and articulated from the Scriptures – perhaps erring in his holistic presentation of it in certain respects – then whether or not one is a "Scripturalist" does not quite belong to Clark. It belongs to anyone who believes his or her theory of knowledge ought to be founded upon the Bible as [the extant extent of] divine revelation. Much in the same way two empiricists or rationalists might disagree with one another in certain respects, two Scripturalists also may disagree in certain respects. 

Of course, a Scripturalist will argue that God's word is a better method of resolving disagreement than is available to the empiricists or rationalists (or Muslims, etc.). The point is that with this framework in mind, I think admirers of Clark need not be shy in expressing disagreement with him.