Saturday, January 7, 2023

Gordon Clark: Phi Beta Kappa (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

1958. Phi Beta Kappa. The Southern Presbyterian Journal. XVI (43), 4. Feb 19

Phi Beta Kappa

The Key Reporter (Jan. 1958), the periodical of the well known honor society, carries an article by Professor C. J. Ducasse of Brown University, Providence, R. I. In one way the article is disturbing: in another way it is encouraging; and it is worth a moment's attention.

In an address to a group of Phi Beta Kappa initiates Professor Ducasse praises philosophy as the guide of life in specific contrast with science and religion. It is the latter that interests us.

The decline of religion as a controlling factor in the lives of the great majority, the commendable decline apparently, results from a wider acquaintance with the religions of far off peoples. In earlier days when transportation was difficult and communication sporadic, people knew little or nothing of religions other than their own. Now they can make comparisons. Now they can see how beliefs and dogmas irreconcilable with their own can and have worked in other civilizations. In thus comparing the different religions modern man sees "that the needs that turn men to religion are on the whole satisfied by the other religions for their devotees as effectively as they are satisfied for him by his own."

Undoubtedly this statement correctly represents the opinion of a large segment of our college professors and students. Before one can judge whether this opinion is true or not, it is necessary to ask what these needs are that all religions satisfy. The article gives a hint of its own view. "Articles of faith... are seen to be not statements known to be true or false, but essentially psychological tools: instruments mankind has automatically devised for performance of certain important social and personal functions." Other authors sometimes specify integration of personality, health, friendship, and other items.

Now it may well be admitted that all religions are fairly successful in satisfying these needs. No doubt a Buddhist or a Moslem, nurtured in and devoted to his faith, is fairly well satisfied; he is probably a relatively well integrated personality; and his religion provides him with friends, if not with health.

But is it for the satisfaction of these needs that we preach Christ and him crucified? Of course, we can, we do, and we should find friends in the Christian community. And as Christ cured insanity, we hope that belief in his gospel will stabilize our minds in time of tribulation. We look to God for the strength to bear our burdens. But these are not the motivations of Christianity; these are not the needs, the main needs, that our belief satisfies. The need, without which we could as well throw Christianity on the junk pile, is the need of heaven and the need of escaping hell. The need that the gospel claims to satisfy is the need of pardon for sin and justification before a just God.

Only by ignoring the one great need can a writer conclude that all religions are equally successful. Only by presupposing the falsity of Christianity to begin with can they all be indiscriminately merged in a sort of general religion.

It is disturbing that Christianity is pictured as a psychological tool invented by man. It is disturbing that such an opinion should receive such wide acceptance — that our colleges should be so secularized — that the Christian religion should be contrasted with wisdom as the guide of life. It is disturbing that men do not recognize their main need.

But at the same time there is something encouraging about this article too. The position maintained is so transparent, the fallacies are so obvious, the pre-judgments are so prominent, that, if these are the worst attacks Christianity must face, we have little to fear. Our intellectual position is far superior.

The mere presentation of a position, no matter how clearly made, even when that position is a straightforward proclamation of the gospel message, does not insure its acceptance. To some this seems unfortunate. If our arguments are so superior, why could we not argue men into the kingdom of heaven? But we cannot.

This does not mean that we should cease to present the claims of Christ in clearly intelligible terms. Our arguments, our beliefs, our message must be made known. But only the almighty power of the Holy Spirit can cause men to accept the message. Come to think of it, that does not seem so unfortunate after all.

G.H.C.

No comments: