A very brief look at Clark's "To Know and Love God"

Clark’s thesis in To Know and Love God is “evangelical theology is the science of God, anchored in the Bible, that awakens the wisdom of God within believers’ hearts and in Christian community,” (257). Clark argues from this thesis that good theology will serve to accomplish the transformation of believers into people who both intellectually know God and experientially love God.

Following a brief historical survey of various theological systems, including philosophical and scriptural models, Clark concludes that scientia is properly used to accomplish sapientia (215). Within this definition, Clark rightly recognizes that the theologian should not ignore the role of scientia in an effort to arrive at sapientia (216-217).

There are at least three admirable pursuits in Clark’s work. First, he desires for the work of the Christian academy to seek the transformation of people into Christ-likeness. Second, he desires the four subdisciplines of theology to correlate their efforts for the purpose of evangelism. Finally, he desires to seek new ways of contextualization for the sake of missions.

Though his goals are admirable the theologian must ask if his method is commensurate to his desired end. The role theology plays in sapientia requires further deliberation. Further, one must consider what dangers inflated expectations within theology poses to the life of the church.

Clark places a burden upon theology which it cannot bear when he states, “If a theology does not transform a Christian’s heart and her church, then it fails calamitously” (232). Correlated with his thesis stated above, Clark seems to elevate theology beyond its limits and unwillingly limits the role of Scripture. By making theology the agent of transformation and the Bible an anchor for theology, Scripture becomes concrete and theology becomes life-giving. This seems reversed.

 Theology does remain fluid, but not due to the needs of any given culture. This fluidity is due to the growth and maturity of the theologian individually and the church corporately. In other words, fluidity within theology is not inherent within itself, but is amendable by an outside force – the learning theologian and churchman. Clark’s argument inherently makes Scripture static as opposed to living (Hebrews 4:12) and theology redemptive instead of reflective.

Scripture is the living Word of God; its life is within itself. Theology is moved because it is passive. Scripture moves because it is active. Clark runs the risk of making Scripture static and theology life giving. Though he seeks to avoid perspectivalism and pragmatism, his argument simply does not follow.

Reiterating that the “transformation of lives and communities – sapientia – is the ultimate function of theology” (222) Clark posits a “centered set approach” whereby a Christian is defined as someone who is “moving toward full conviction of the doctrine of the triune God, full devotion to Jesus Christ, and full confidence in the Spirit. The key issue is the trajectory of a person’s life” (224). Though trajectory is important for defining maturity in Christ, it remains quite ambiguous for defining the fundamentals of Christianity.

Though Clark’s offering is thought provoking and at times, beneficial, fully embracing theology as the means to transformation will inevitably lead to overcontextualization of the Gospel. Theology should develop directly from Scripture and be amended only as reflection upon Scripture provides more understanding. With a full orbed theology the evangelist/missionary will be prepared to preach the living Word of God in ways that transcend cultural boundaries.