Gordon Clark: Leadership (The Evangelical Student)

1932. Leadership. The Evangelical Student. The Magazine of the League of Evangelical Students, Vol. 6 No. 2, Jan. 6.

Leadership 

GORDON H. CLARK 

In our university there are among other schools, a Medical School, a Law School, and an Engineering School. Many of the men who expect to enter these schools take the College course in logic during their freshman year. Strange mistakes do they make, but no stranger than those of the vast majority of people who have never entered a college. The persistent fallacies of the human mind constitute one of the best evidences I know for the doctrine of inherent depravity. Take any freshman in logic and ask him to determine the validity of this line of reasoning: If the electric bulb is functioning, the switch at the door has been turned or pushed to make the given contact; now, the given contact has been made, therefore the light is on. An engineering student who has heard of fuses before may well demur, but the Law or Medical group are more likely to let it pass. If the example were chosen from Law or Medicine, the Engineering students would just as often make the same mistake. And yet no extraneous knowledge is actually required to determine the validity of such an inference. For some reason, however (only a Christian would attribute it to the result of sin), man's mind is inclined to accept both the truth of premises and the validity of inferences whose conclusions it takes as true. To the typical politician any statement is true and any argument valid if the conclusion praises his party. 

The Christian, since he is to some extent at least still in bondage to sin, is also liable to commit this fallacy of affirming the consequent. Conversion is not sanctification nor is it education, and if the latter are not so imperative as the first, they are, nevertheless, emphatically desirable. A Christian is more severely judged than others; the world takes pretty seriously Christ's principle, by their fruits ye shall know them. It has been reported, truthfully or otherwise, that Spurgeon, comparing Christianity with newspapers, said not everyone reads what is written, but nearly all look at the illustrations. And if the Christian talks about his Christianity, his talk is scrutinized more critically than it would have been had he or a non-Christian been discussing relativity. 

Such criticism should spur us as much to accuracy and truthfulness in speech as to upright conduct in action. This leads to a puzzling problem in ethics. Knowing the human failings in logical matters, should a Christian take advantage of them in trying to win others to Christ? Should we recognizing of course that only God or the Holy Spirit can regenerate, try to save our friend by means of an invalid argument or untrue statement? A man of ordinary intelligence and limited knowledge might with some ease be so persuaded. We recall to what lengths Paul was almost willing to go to save Israel. But is it right? At any rate, all can heartily agree that it would be better to save by means of valid argument. 

And further, is it right, is it wise, to defend Evangelicalism by invalid argument or untrue statement? Actual contact with students of all shades of religious and irreligious heritages forces one to assert the folly of such a procedure. In the rather recent past there was published by a prominent evangelical a book on ethics in which the superiority of Christian over non-Christian ideals was argued. To accomplish his aim the author made certain misstatements of fact, he called his opponents hazy without usually pointing out the exact source of the haze, and, to the present writer at least, seemed to misconstrue Calvinistic theology. Advertised as a welcome relief from the godless ethics of the universities, this book with its undoubtedly unintentional carelessness, makes a bad impression on students who know these other systems. If, then, such slips occur in a published book, students in the enthusiasm of personal discussion must take heed lest they be too easily carried away. On the whole, evangelical students, 1 believe, make fewer wild statements than their antagonists. But the faults of others are less our excuse than our opportunity, for to gain the reputation of being careful and truthful will in the long run be of greater advantage than the temporary victory over a misinformed and hence deceived opponent. 

The thought may be summed up in an expression of one of the Hodges, "Search the Scriptures, prove all things; but see that your search he reverent and your proof sound." N ow this, be very sure, requires constant care, downright hard work. Yet after all, it is not so terrible as being beaten with rods or stoned and left for dead. Why, then, won't some? 

Well, some won't because they don't believe in argument at all. Religion for them is an emotion, they contrast the head and the heart and reject what they designate as cold intellectualism. Before me here is a Testament edited for Fishers of Men. Its advice to personal workers is, "Talk happiness. Don't argue." This attitude has taken possession of a large number of orthodox or fundamental Christians. They seem to fear the intellects of non-Christian philosophers and scientists, and perhaps rate the abilities of the modernists too highly. So they retreat within an unintellectual emotionalism. Now we deplore an intellectualism which is really cold, if such there be; but intellectualism can be even more devoted and certainly more intelligently devoted than emotionalism. Recently a thoroughly evangelical speaker conducted a series of evangelistic meetings. He took instances from the life of Christ, showed well His winsomeness and appealed to his audiences to come to Jesus. But in the sermons this writer heard there was no argument to prove Christ's resurrection, no proof of Jesus' ability to save, no explanation of how Jesus does save. They were merely emotional appeals. Who is Jesus anyhow? Various preachers tell us various things and the evangelical is obligated to persuade his hearers that Jesus is God and saves us through His death and resurrection. But persuasion, if it be valid and not a tissue of falsehoods, is intellectual argument. 

Have these our friends, mistaken though we regard them, considered the examples of apostolic preaching? There are at least three unmistakable examples of argument in the hook of Acts. First, Stephen, in Acts 8:9, 10, disputed so well that "they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake." Dare anyone reply that the result shows he was foolish? Must we reject the example of the first martyr? Those who on principle refuse to argue apparently say yes. Second, Paul not only argued with the Stoics and Epicureans on Mars Hill, he also disputed daily in the market place. Some have actually called his approach at Athens a mistake. But should he have used the Old Testament before those who were unfamiliar with it? Is it wrong to proceed from a point of agreement? Was it a mistake because he was laughed at or because he failed? But some promised to hear him again. and some were converted, notably Dionysius. And if Athens were a failure in results, we must judge our own success with considerable severity. Third, was Paul mistaken when he so "reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come" that "Felix trembled"? If reasoning, disputing, arguing can make some tremble, it seems the Christian should despise neither these procedures nor, note well, the hard intellectual labor which must precede rational argument. 

May we point out also that Peter's sermons are not cheap and emotional? He exegetes the Old Testament, he states the historic facts of Christ's death and resurrection. Certainly he made an appeal, but the appeal is based on sober historical occurrences. Moreover, large portions of the New Testament are thoroughly polemic. The great instance is the Epistle to the Galatians, another case is the First Epistle of John. These letters are arguments against heresies, they are not irrational emotionalism, they address themselves to the understanding. For the understanding is darkened by sin and it is a Christian duty to shed some intellectual light into the dark area. The basis of Christianity is no mystic incommunicable experience, it is something open to anyone's investigation, for "these things were not done in a corner" and we are required to have a reason for the faith that is in us. 

To some, of course, these sentiments will be needless. But it is a fact that numbers of active Christians do not fully realize the seriousness of the situation in educated circles. We must reach those who never had any respect for Biblical authority. We must preach the gospel in Athens as well as in Berea. How would you approach this Jewish university student? Willing to admit the logical possibility of a hell, he was satisfied to take the chance there was none. F or him all beliefs respecting the future and most respecting the past, are equally probable. How do you get a young man to admit the need of a Saviour? It is my unpleasant opinion, based on a limited though careful observation, that a large proportion of believers are as flip and superficial in dismissing anti-Christian. non-theistic, pagan theories, as some of our opponents are in relegating Paulinism to an antiquated realm of obscurantism and myth. 

The League, then, if it wishes to be of real value in the present worldwide religious conflict, must achieve intellectual leadership. It may not be wise for this magazine to become purely a theological journal, essential as such publications are: but the League members, who eventually formulate the League's policy, cannot hope to recall the churches to their evangelical creeds without, among other things to be sure, showing precisely how humanism-the source of modernism-fails to meet intellectual requirements even in spheres loosely connected with religion. The spheres of theory and practice, life and doctrine, philosophy and religion are one. We do not need devotion less, but we do need more intellection.