Review of “To Know and Love God: Method for Theology” (David K. Clark)

To Know and Love God: Method for Theology, by David K. Clark, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books 2003, xxxii & 464 pp., soft cover, $35.00.

The author is Prof. of Theology at Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, and is also the author of a book on classical apologetics. This book is an attempt to give the evangelical community a full-scale prolegomenon for theology that is up to date and forward looking.
As part of Crossway’s “Foundations of Evangelical Theology” series, To Know and Love God is no beginner’s text (assurances from the General Editor John Feinberg notwithstanding, xvii). Clark makes demands on his reader, taking them through a wide variety of disciplines and issues. The first chapter surveys the history of “Concepts of Theology.” Within it he criticizes the view that theology is an inductive science (50), highlighting instead the method of abduction (previously commended by J.W. Montgomery) wherein “the theorist moves back and forth between the theory and observations” (51). Since, as Clark notes, abduction was introduced by the pragmatist C.S. Pierce, it has a tendency to shuffle off propositions too early in search of utility. While not accusing the author of pragmatism, we do think he sometimes leans too quickly in favor of testing theology “for adequacy to Scripture, internal coherence, and explanatory power for life” (51). We accept that “Theology must express the gospel so that it addresses persons and groups in their context,” but does this mean “every theology is rightly judged by the criterion of relevancy to culture” (53)? Sometimes the culture must be challenged. Sometimes the world must be turned upside down (Acts 17:6).

In the third chapter Clark carefully picks his way through the dangers of liberal contextualizing to recommend an “Evangelical Contextualization.” But he seems to overlook the fact that right practice must issue from right doctrine (102, 114, 115, 118, and 130. But see 211-212). For instance, he asks, can true worship incorporate “the energetic drums of central Africa, the refined simplicity of Japanese painting, or the soothing rhythms of Hawaiian dance” (126)? Without sounding like a cultural iconoclast, this reviewer is not of the opinion that culture is spiritually neutral, whatever culture it may be. There has to be a propositional base, attainable and unmovable, upon which to stand the cardinal doctrines of the Bible, which depict its worldview. There is too much credence given to hermeneutical “preunderstanding” here to settle comfortably on a normative understanding of God’s Word. Clark certainly endorses a high view of Scripture (63, 65), but he qualifies it too much (84-96), even commending William Webb’s “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” (93-94), which treats the Biblical text much like progressive judges treat the Constitution.

Clark’s argument for why classical foundationalism is passé as a ground for theological knowledge is very good (152-164). We could not agree more with his opinion that “we as evangelical theologians should distance ourselves from the program of the Enlightenment” (152). He is certainly on target when he complains that “Scholars of religious studies must not require as a precondition to discussion that we abandon our commitment to the Christian revelational claim” (205 italics his). His comments about dialogue within the academy are important, if, perhaps, fraught with the peril of compromise.

Chapter 7 on “The Spiritual Purposes of Theology” is possibly the best in the book, and appears to form the central aim of the entire work. It is followed by strong chapters on “Theology and Science” and “Theology and Philosophy.” Alvin Plantinga’s shadow looms large in these chapters. Clark briefly mentions the Kuyper, Van Til, Frame perspective on worldview, but does not grasp how these thinkers employ the concept of “presupposition” to refer to ultimate heart commitments, critiquing their content on the basis of a transcendental standard: the Bible (208-309).

The chapter on world religions is a little less incisive than we had hoped for, and the one on “Reality, Truth, and Language” is solid but technical.

When all is said, the writer has accomplished a very difficult task. He discusses many important subjects thoughtfully and with sophistication, if not always, for this reviewer, convincingly. He has provided evangelical theologians with much food for thought.