Gordon Haddon Clark (1902-85) has been referred to by many epithets. From “the greatest American theologian and philosopher” (Gordon Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, 181) to a man with “serious errors in the theological conceptions . . . concerning the incomprehensibility and knowability of God” (See Herman Hoeksema’s The Clark-Van Til Controversy, The Trinity Foundation), monikers have ranged from those of high praise to condemnation. Clark no doubt faced his share of criticism. In fact, the amount of criticism from alleged believers is remarkable considering Dr. Clark’s clear position on the Bible as the sole authority for living. (How many godly men with such credentials—a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Wheaton, and other colleges; a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; etc.—have had their ordinations vehemently opposed by colleagues?) Certainly one possible interpretation of a lion’s share of trouble is that the trouble indicates an evil work on the part of the criticizer and a godly work on the part of the criticized (Matthew 5:11). Jonathan Edwards himself underwent similar circumstances concerning forced resignation from a previously friendly body of believers. Of course, criticism cannot be a sure testament to one’s godliness, but Clark’s body of literature focuses so much on the sovereignty of God that doubting his godliness seems puerile at best and vicious at worst. If Clark’s A Christian Philosophy of Education is not a testament to the impressive gifts of this godly man, surely even Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” is no more than a grammar student’s practice essay.
Several reasons exist for Dr. Clark’s success in this book. One is that Clark’s background as a logician has equipped him to incorporate a rational progression throughout the book. This logical order first manifests itself in his preface, which he concludes with an authoritative statement of purpose: He desires for God to use his book to “save our young people from this present world” (10). The book transitions nicely from theoretical chapters towards the beginning to practical chapters towards the end, especially the last two. Chapter 3 displays one of Clark’s logical techniques: referring to a specific issue, proving a general principle surrounding that issue, then returning to the specific issue and applying the proven principle. . . . Clark notes that ideas have consequences, and if non-theists are consistent, they have no choice but to be pessimistic—neither Humanism nor evolution offer any consistent, optimistic expectations, so the only logical decision to avoid the fatalistic life of a Naturalist is to commit suicide. . . .
Multiple other examples of Clark’s razor-sharp logic cutting through erroneous philosophies appear throughout the book. . . .
A second reason for the book’s success is that from the very beginning, Dr. Clark livens the pages with occasional satire and dry humor. (Concerning those antagonistic to Christianity, Clark’s tone is understandably not as genial. But his satire remains civil and leans more towards that of Horace than that of Juvenal.) Clark’s humor endears him to like-minded believers. His tongue-in-cheek comment introducing Chapter 1 seems good-naturedly to undermine his very book. But his “admission” that “those who cannot [do nor] teach, teach Education” (11) does more to ingratiate the audience to his point of view rather than to subvert educators and their careers—he was an educator himself. . . . Clark’s humor continues sporadically from chapter to chapter. One can imagine the “wry” smile that must have crept onto Clark’s face as he thought about the cosmonaut stepping out of his capsule and seeing God (32). . . . Later he repeats a quip Socrates used against the modernists: Their criticism of his repeating himself could never be leveled against themselves, for they “never said the same thing twice” (87). Clark’s last chapter utilizes a question to point out a glaring inconsistency of liberal thought: “Strange, isn’t it, that liberals object to executing murderers, and approve of murdering innocent unborn infants? (As a Calvinist, Dr. Clark did not believe that infants were truly “innocent,” for even babies are born in sin (Psalms 51:5; 58:3). But he uses the term to distinguish unborn children from individuals convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers. In that sense, the comparison is valid.) But it’s consistent” (123). . . .
Not only does Clark’s logic and satire support his book, but also Clark’s experience with philosophy makes his book a reliable resource on education. . . . Empiricism is not the only philosophical theory Clark tackles. He systematically deals with Existentialism (27, 44), classic proofs for the existence of God (29-30), Pascal’s wager (32), the problem of evil (42), presuppositional theology (74, 129), and a host of individual philosophers. Chapter 3 particularly explores the thoughts of thinkers and writers such as Herbert Spencer, Alfred Tennyson, Thomas Hardy, Theodore Dreiser, William James, Bertrand Russell, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Rudolf Bultmann, and Paul Tillich. In Chapter 5, Clark compares a Christian basis for ethics and morality compared to views by Plato, Leibniz, Dewey, Tufts, and Kant. Fortunately, Clark’s writing style is accessible enough that moderately educated readers will not struggle through his prose, but rather will benefit from his broad background in philosophy.
Finally, and most importantly, Clark acknowledges his complete reliance on God’s sovereignty, and he employs a consistent use of Scripture to uphold the educational claims in his book. Towards the beginning of the book, he writes, “What is needed is an educational system based on the sovereignty of God” (23). Further he states, “the first step [in a counter strategy to the public schools’ omission of biblical truth] is to learn what the Scriptures teach” (60). Additionally, he affirms that “the first and basic point in a Christian philosophy of education, or a Christian philosophy of anything, is Biblical authority. . . . A philosophy of education therefore is more or less Christian as it more or less faithfully derives its contents from the Bible” (86). . . .
Even when Clark does not include a reference, knowledgeable readers pick up on Clark’s use of Scripture in his arguments. Clark references the Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) when he writes, “One of the earliest commands of God to man was to subdue nature and turn it to his purposes” (56). Moreover, “God has commanded us to love him with all our mind and strength; without this motivation even our apparently good deeds are evil” (51). Here Clark draws attention both to Mark 12:30—Christ’s “first commandment”—and to Proverbs 21:4—a verse which confirms that even “the plowing of the wicked is sin.” (See page 92: “The morality of an act cannot be judged apart from its motivation, and the motivation of the wicked is always wicked.”) . . . Clark’s optimism manifests itself singularly in his reference to Matthew 16:18: “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against [Christ’s] church” (122). Sadly, many Christians look at their place in the world very differently. Whereas they tend to huddle in a corner and hope that Hell does not prevail against the gates of the Church, Clark boldly contends for the truth that it is the forces of Hell that are on the defensive. Furthermore, a study of the book’s Scripture Index (163) reveals the following: twenty books are referenced (eight are Old Testament; twelve are New Testament); Romans (one of the most logical books by one of the most logical writers of Scripture) provides the most quotations; and his use of references spans almost the entire breadth of the Bible (Genesis to 1 John). Clark’s emphasis on Scripture rather than man’s ability points to another of the Reformation solas: Sola Deo Gloria.
In conclusion, A Christian Philosophy of Education is not merely an attempt at coherence. What Gordon Clark’s book has done for Christian education is monumentally grander than any secular attempts to provide a philosophical foundation for education. The work is successful because, as Joshua 1:8 proclaims, that man who immerses himself in the word of God cannot help but be prosperous in the eyes of God. The formal definition of “essay” is an attempt or effort, and all non-Biblical attempts to defend their educational philosophies are simply that—essays in futility. And in an age when futility is so prevalent—consider the rampant postmodernism in higher education—Clark’s optimism is quickening. Perhaps a fitting epithet for Dr. Clark could be “Biblical optimist,” for as he says, “History is not moving toward utter futility, but toward a glorious reign of righteousness when the kingdoms of this world are becoming the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever” (46). Has there ever been a worthier goal than to Biblically educate the next generation to advance the kingdom of God?