Gordon Clark: Modal Spheres and Morality (Essays on Ethics and Politics)

c. 1973. Modal Spheres and Morality. Published in [Essays on Ethics and Politics 1992].

In Volume II of his four great volumes on A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Herman Dooyeweerd begins with a discussion of cosmic time. This important part of his system leads directly into his discussion of the modal spheres, which I propose to examine in this paper. In the Gordon Review of September 1956 I offered several objections to the theory of cosmic time. The first few were generally philosophical, but the last was pointedly religious because it uncovered the implications of cosmic time for the inspiration of Scripture. It would be better to repeat here the entire context, but the time allows only a brief quotation as a basis of discussion.

"In this eschatological aspect of time, " says Dooyeweerd, "faith grasps the 'eschaton' and in general that which is or happens beyond the limits of cosmic time. In this special sense are to be understood the 'days of creation,' the initial words of the book of Genesis, the order in which regeneration precedes conversion etc... I cannot agree with some modern theologians, who identify the eschatological aspect of time with the historical and reject the supra-temporal central sphere of human existence and of divine revelation."

This quotation shows that Dooyeweerd assigns the first chapters of Genesis and eschatological passages, such as prophecies of Christ's return, to a place beyond the limits of cosmic time, beyond the cosmic temporal order and beyond historical time. How Dooyeweerd distinguishes between an eschatological passage and a non-eschatological passage, I do not know. May I ask, Is the account of Christ's crucifixion eschatological? If it is, the crucifixion did not occur in historical time. Surely the return of Christ must be considered eschatological. Then on Dooyeweerd's principles it too cannot occur in any historical sequence. Even with his restricted example of the days of creation as supra-temporal, one is justified in wondering whether the temptation of Eve and the fall of Adam are historical. If not, and if the fall is existentialized, Romans 5:12-21 forces the question as to whether we should in consistency existentialize Christ himself.

Further, in opposing some theologians who reject the "supra-temporal central sphere of human existence," does Dooyeweerd imply the eternity of man and make salvation a deification? Surely he seems to deny that man is forever a temporal creature.

Like the theory of cosmic time Dooyeweerd's theory of fifteen law spheres also impinges on the subject of Scriptural inspiration. Once against I shall not repeat the criticisms of this confused theory that I published in an earlier work. I shall only add a discussion of its bearing on the Scripture; and in doing so I shall refer more to some of his disciples that to Dooyeweerd himself.

The theory of law spheres is a sort of classification of sciences. The basic science is arithmetic. It is basic because everything can be counted. Plants as well as atoms can be numbered. The higher biotic sphere is subject to all the laws of arithmetic, but not all numerable quantities are subject to the laws of plant life. Each higher sphere of fifteen exemplifies the laws of the spheres below it, but none of the lower spheres exemplifies the higher laws.

Above the sphere of plant life, and here I omit several steps, there come the spheres of economics, ethics, and at the very top the sphere of faith. Although Dooyeweerd allows this to be any faith, Buddhist or even communist perhaps, the present aim is to see what happens in the case of Christian faith. The problem is this: If the laws of the higher spheres to not apply to the lower spheres, can the Christian faith provide any principles for ethics or economics? Since the formal principle of the Reformation is the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Bible, the question more simply put is: Does the Bible supply us with normative principles in economics and ethics? The initial impression is that the theory of law spheres does not allow the Bible to speak on such matters.

This initial impression is strengthened by material published by some of Dooyeweerd's disciples in this country and Canada. There is a booklet entitled Understanding the Scriptures by A. H. DeGraaff and C. G. Seerveld. Almost at the beginning (page two in fact), Dr. DeGraaff says, "You distort the Scriptures when you read them as a collection of objective statements about God and man... They do not contain any rational, general, theological statements about God and his creation... It is not the purpose of the Bible to inform us about the nature of God's being or his attributes" (p. 9). He also adds, "The Scriptures are neither rational nor irrational in character" (p. 18).

In my opinion all of these statements except the last are false, and the last is nonsense. The assertion that the Scriptures contain no rational, general, theological statements about God and his creation is clearly false because the Scriptures say that God is righteous and man is sinful. To say that the Scriptures are neither rational nor irrational is nonsense. Everyone knows that the statement, Today is Friday, is rational. Similarly, Wellington defeated Napoleon. These statements can be understood, easily understood. On the other hand, the profound pronouncement, Onts skom bubbits, is irrational. There is nothing in it to be understood. It has no meaning. For that matter the assertion, Two equals three, is not merely false: It is irrational because the predicate is the logical contrary of the subject. Therefore it cannot be understood. It has no meaning. But what example can be given of a sentence that is neither rational nor irrational, a sentence that has a meaning and equally has no meaning, a sentence that cannot be understood and at the same time can be understood? Looking for one in a book, such as the Bible, is like going to the zoo to find an animal that is neither vertebrate nor invertebrate.

More obviously connected with the theory of law spheres is Dr. DeGraaff's view of ethics. He writes, "Nor does it - the Bible - contain moral applications that tell us how to live the good life - virtues that we share with the humanist" (p. 21). The additional words after the dash cause confusion. It is true that a Christian does not share any virtue with a humanist because a humanist just cannot have any Christian virtue. But it is false to say that the Bible gives no moral rules. Dr. DeGraaff objects to teaching boys and girls in Vacation Bible School moral lessons about purity, chastity, and Victorian, middle-class American standards. Instead of warning them against the prevalent loose view of sex, we should tell them about irresponsible de-foresting, yellow smog, dirty water - and we should tell them these things in a "non-moralistic manner" (p. 26). Apparently dirty water is worse than a dirty mind.

In answer to many objections from Christian Dr. DeGraaf repeats, "The Bible does not teach us how to be good and how to avoid being bad" (p. 29). So says Dr. DeGraadd. But the Bible says, "All Scripture... is profitable... for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be... completely furnished to every good work." The Bible also says, "They word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee."

But Dr. DeGraaff plunges on. Speaking of the Ten Commandments (which he strangely says are not commandments at all), he says, "None of them can be literally followed or applied today, for we live in a different period of history in a different culture" (p. 35).

Imagine! It is impossible to follow or apply the commandment, Thou shalt not steal, because we live in a different culture. Thou shalt not commit adultery cannot be literally obeyed today because God commanded it in 1500 B. C. This line of thought is incredible. But check the references: page 35, Understanding the Scriptures, DeGraaff and Seerveld, Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, Toronto, Canada. Since none of the Ten Commandments can be literally applied today, DeGraaff suggests that for them we substitute agitation against police brutality (p. 56).. Love your neighbor's wife, but hate the police.

There is a further implication. If God's command against adultery is inapplicable in our different culture, why should we suppose that God's covenant with Abraham is applicable? Dr. DeGraaff seems to retain some respect for the covenant. Yet how can the Mosaic command against adultery be culturally conditioned in 1500 B. C., while a religious covenant some 500 years earlier escape such cultural conditioning? A rational thinker, might, in consistency, reject both. A consistent Christian accepts both. But it takes some explaining to accept the one and reject the other.

In order that no one may suppose Dr. DeGraaff to be an anomaly among the disciples of Dooyeweerd and that these criticisms are not relevant to the whole movement, the same ideas are to be noted in the writings of Dr. Calvin Seerveld. In the same volume with DeGraaff, Dr. Seerveld has an interesting section on the exegesis of Numbers 22-24. He uses this passage to distinguish three methods of understanding the Scriptures. The first method is that of evangelical fundamentalists. Dr. Seerveld has collected phrases from Alexander Maclaren, W. B. Riley, Clarence Edward Macartney, and others who note that (1) Balaam had a strong passion for earthly honor; (2) he wanted the best of two incompatible worlds; and (3) he beat his ass unmercifully. From these points the fundamentalist concludes that we should not put earthly honor first among our choices; that we should seek righteousness first of all; and that we should not be cruel to dumb animals. Dr. Seerveld continues his list with a number of such applications and moral lessons.

The second method is beside the present purpose. The third method Dr. Seerveld assigns to the "remnants of staunch orthodox churches," and he cites Hengstenberg and Calvin. This method specializes in doctrine, rather than in ethical application. It notes that Numbers 23:19 is a clear statement of God's immutability. This divine dependability extends to the covenant with Abraham, which therefore applies to the Israelites whom Balak wanted Balaam to curse. In the account the fulfillment of the covenant is prophesied in the words, "There shall come forth a star out of Jacob." And there is considerably more in the passage.

Dr. Seerveld disapproves of these methods. He challenges their hidden aprioris; he suggests that they miss the richness of Scripture, and mislead fledgling readers who use them (p. 67). As for the fundamentalist method of moral application, Dr. Seerveld says, "Balaam's invitation from Balak is not remotely within my experience as a Christian school teacher because my twentieth century situation and the ancient parallel made abstractly ideal jibe of sorts only after a dozen qualifications.... [T]he binding force is lost" (p. 68). Thus "the world-upsidedown changing message of Numbers 22-24 is reduced to a mess of moralistic pottage" (p. 69).

The method of the Reformers, the orthodox Calvinistic method, is equally bad. This "Scholastic reading of the Scriptures is always after truths that can be theoretically formulated and held to be universally valid, consistent Bible teaching against all attack (p. 74). This Reformed method is bad, says Dr. Seerveld, because "it removes the reader half a step from the convicting comfort and humbling facing God's love and anger brings, removes the reader half a step away from existential confrontation with the living Word of God and asks him to comprehend these realities for codified propositional dogmas" (p. 65). 

But is the Reformation method, the method of studying and learning what the Bible says, such a bad method? Is it not rather commendable? Let it be noted that the Apostle Peter at the beginning of his second epistle says, "Grace to you and peace be multiplied by the knowledge of God" (II Peter 1:2). At the end of the same epistle he repeats, "Grow in grace and knowledge" (3:18). The Apostle John also emphasized doctrine and propositions. Without mentioning existentialism or irrational confrontations, John, in fact, Jesus himself says, "If any one guards my doctrine, he shall not see death, ever" (8:51). Another verse that makes Christianity depend on an understanding of and an assent to propositions is, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me; but if you do not believe his writings, how can you believe my words!" (5:47). Jesus also said, "The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (6:63). (Compare my short volume, The Johannine Logos.)

The Reformation use of the Bible, like the evangelical fundamentalist method, also "is interested in the practical lessons we can learn from it." The Westminster divine would have rejected Dr. Seerveld's charge of reducing the Bible to a "mess of moralistic pottage." Their careful and very detailed exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Larger Catechism shows how greatly the valued morality.

By Dr. Seerveld in his remarks on Numbers says, "To make Balaam a warning for the reader is to distort the nature of biblical narrative and ignore the historical solidity of God's disclosure. Scripture never gives biographic snatches to serve as ethical models" (p. 68).

In contrast with Dr. Seerveld's view of the Bible stands the practice of the Apostle Peter. Speaking of the false teachers who introduced heresies instead of accepting orthodox propositions, and who lived in contempt of Dr. Seerveld's moralistic pottage, the Apostle writes, "having forsaken the right way they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam, son of Beor, who love the hire of wrong-doing" etc. (II Peter 2:15ff.). Here the Apostle most assuredly uses "biographic snatches to serve as ethical models." If a modern exegete condemns the Apostle's use of the Bible, then it seems to me that the modern exegete has gone astray - not the Apostle.