Book Review: David K. Clark's To Know and Love God

A couple of summers ago, my daughter Ashlyn picked up one of my theology texts and couldn't stop reading it. In fact, she used it as a devotional supplement along with the Bible and her other quiet time material. So, I thought I'd make it a recommendation and offer a critical review from a missiological perspective. The book is: David C. Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2003). Amazon.com is selling it in hardcover for about $23 or on Kindle for less than $9.

           To know and love God may sound like an easy quote, but to develop an untainted theology in a world of compromised philosophy is no easy task. The presupposition for knowing and loving God is the belief that this is actually attainable. Clark’s basic premise is that evangelical systematic theology is currently being influenced by modern schools of thought seeking to destroy the very foundations of faith. Evangelicalism may have been historically expressed through conversionism, activism, Biblicism and crucicentrism, but these expressions have been recently challenged by both modernist and postmodernist positions.

            As both a theological and experiential movement, evangelicalism is integrated into academic disciplines, related to the sciences, framed philosophically, and juxtaposed against world religions. Although Clark delves into the historical perspectives of scriptural authority, he also presents a thorough survey of those current issues involved in the attack upon evangelical theology. Three large themes that seem to emerge with missiological concerns are radical contextualization, perspectivalism, and religious pluralism.

Contextualization

Theological Consideration of Contextualization

Clark believes that “theology must articulate the Word of God to its particular culture” (134). But liberal theologians have adhered to an uncritical acceptance of all cultural elements as worthy mediums for the gospel message. What began as a push for cultural awareness and albeit superficial “principlizing” (98) of Scripture has now broken off into an evangelical and liberal debate. To be indigenous is to be contextualized, but some are asking how purely contextualized a gospel presentation by a human can really be without becoming extreme.  

Liberation theology has created a hermeneutic that begins with the experience of the socially challenged. Feminist theologians and gay rights activists also have made critical challenges in the field of theology by attempting to twist truth according to their own experience and yet demanding full acceptance of their stance. Bultmann’s existential position on hermeneutical interpretation of Scripture produced those same challenges of course. Postmodernists believe that culture and theology are so blended that no ultimate truth can really be known. Continuously stressing extreme social points of view as the basis for interpretation can only stifle theological development.

Although understanding presuppositions, values, beliefs and experiences is necessary for any quality interpretation, handcuffing Scriptural interpretation to cultural pre-understanding is wrong. Evangelicals today must adhere to a decode/encode model whereby a missionary decodes biblical truth into his own cultural context and then re-encodes the truth into the culture of the target culture. Of course this assumes that transcultural biblical elements do not change in the process. Clark rightly argues for a more realistic dialogue that should take place between both human cultures and the biblical culture.

            Clark says that to effectively participate in this debate we must recognize our own cultural interpretations. We must critique ourselves and always push for relevance in our theologies. He believes that Scripture is greater than any cultural assumption. So in order to avoid irrelevance, we should avoid the extreme positions of ignoring our presuppositions as well as allowing them to set the agenda. And yet in the midst of this debate, we must never lose sight

of the fact that God loves diversity and that we must love those different from us.

Because “the goal of evangelical theology is biblically controlled and contextually relevant knowledge that leads to spiritual wisdom,” (98) he proposes a dialogical model for a holistic approach to sharing biblical truth. He gives examples of songs used to share truth in context, of political activism that sometimes creates unnecessary barriers to conversation, and of feminist renderings of Scripture texts that can unwittingly provide new insight into biblical backgrounds. Clark believes the church and Bible itself are transcultural, so we should dialogue with others cross-culturally to sharpen our own theologies.    

Realities of the Mission Field

Many European Baptist leaders are typically anti-culture when it comes to engaging the lost world, because their theologies were formed under the suppression of communism or fascism. Therefore, many view any outside influence as negative, even if it comes from North American Baptist brothers. The missionary challenge of being influential and yet guarding a contextualized gospel is unique for these locations.

            Typically, Russian Baptists believe they can lose their salvation. As a conservative North

American missionary, I tried to influence their doctrine of eternal security. But as I sought to maintain some semblance of self-theologizing among nationals, I wondered where the line was that allows influence while yet not demanding American theology. According to Clark, influence is possible but only through a trialogue between two international churches and Scripture.             

Perspectivalism

Theological Reflection of Perspectivalism

When radical contextualization is carried to its extreme, even the concept of absolute truth is suspect. Perspectivalism, the idea that larger belief systems always overshadow individual beliefs, is a logical conclusion. While microperspectives may be either incongruent or incommensurable, these macro-perspectives have to find some common ground for a dialogue to occur. Postmodern in nature, perspectivalism is “the notion that macroperspectives are completely incommensurable” (140). Thus evangelicals have to reject perspectivalism on the bases of the absolute truth of Scripture and the belief that God has prepared all men to receive salvation.

            The concept of shifting paradigms, forming mental models, and building systems of thought no longer just applies to the scientific world. Because postmodernists reject all notions of unity of knowledge and mask their disdain for absolutes under the guise of celebrating plurality, evangelical students are in danger of being swayed by words that the entire world accepts as truth. At the very core of perspectivalism is an attack on evangelical systematic theology, because it stands for an evangelistic system built upon objective absolutes.

            Clark lists several convincing reasons for rejecting theological perspectivalism, such as its incoherence in its conceptual scheme and its self-defeating nature by questioning its own truth. But perhaps the greatest danger of perspectivalism for an evangelical is its widespread doubt of any and all truth. Unfortunately, this problem has begun to spread even into emerging churches worldwide.

Realities of the Mission Field

To my own chagrin, postmodernism has finally reached Russia, affecting everyone to some degree inside and

outside the church. As we witness to young Russian adults, it is evident that they reject the concept of absolute truth as well as the concept of values. One missionary recently commented that his hour-long discussion about values with a young Russian professional ironically ended with her statement of absolute belief in no absolutes. A few years ago, the International Mission Board committed an entire team to work among postmodernists in Moscow.

            But inside the Russian church, there is also a subtle form of collectivist perspectivalism. It evidences itself through use of convention, through politics, and through anti-American sentiment. It voices itself in arguments against reaching Russian Muslims since they already believe in God or against missions because no real Christian would think he had the sole source of truth. Fortunately, many Russian Baptist leaders recognize it and are discussing ways to deal with the problem.

Pluralism

Theological Reflection of Pluralism

Pluralism’s very premise that “ultimate Reality is equally involved salvifically in many of the major world religions” (331) is flawed. If the unique claim of Christianity as the only means of salvation is true, then by default there can be no inclusion. The pluralist stance that all religions can reveal some form of salvation simply does not hold true for the realist or the non-realist. Clark ingeniously takes John Hicks and Gordon Kaufman to task as he discredits the very hypotheses of pluralism.

            But the inference of pluralism that “any theology that assumes it has a special claim to truth or salvation is flawed at its core” (331) is also discredited. Pluralism and metaphysical realism is unstable at best, because to accept all religious tenets leaves no room for contradiction. Pluralism and alethic nonrealism makes no sense, because no religious doctrine can be supported. In reality, pluralism is untenable as a theological stance.

            Pluralism played out in action, however, is defined as tolerance. Again self-contradictory, tolerance demands acceptance of all beliefs except those that claim uniqueness. There is a veneer of pluralistic acceptance in the current philosophy of tolerance, but actually it creates problems for evangelical Christians who adhere to Scripture as final authority. Clark suggests that we as evangelical theologians should carefully consider how we might engage this school of thought that is rapidly expanding throughout the world.

Realities of the Mission Field

It has been aptly noted that many who labeled themselves atheists under communism are now the regular attendees holding VIP seats in the Russian Orthodox Church. I once talked to a Russian atheist about Jesus, and his response was that he believed Jesus was God’s Son but that he didn’t believe God existed. This type of paradox of belief has permeated Russian society, largely because the Russian mentality allows for pluralism. I have even been chided in a Russian Baptist Church for saying that Islam does not provide for the salvation of a soul. As a missionary working in Russia, I sought ways to break down the pluralistic spirit among believers as well as build bridges with Russian postmodern students.

Conclusion

Clark is right to systematically discuss the philosophical systems that are eating away at the core of evangelical theology. His book is a good manual for surveying these postmodern elements and rediscovering the very heart of Christian doctrine. Because theology cannot be mono-directional, evangelical theologians must engage the current dialogue about God. And whether our conversation partners hold to liberal contextualization, postmodern perspectivalism, or untenable pluralism sheathed in a skin of tolerance, we must be ready to show our personal knowledge and love for God by using words they understand.