Yes, and his take on the authority of Scripture has an application far beyond what we are talking about here. That a Catholic could and did write this for all us Protestants is also a laugh (in a good way).
I know a large part of this was to get it back in print.
What types of changes and additions did you all make?
None in terms of content/substance. Fixing typos, redesigning (typesetting & cover).
It is a massive undertaking simply to get clean text back off the paper into the computer. The scanner output for the main text wasn’t terrible, but it took countless hours to catch and fix all the mistakes. And the footnote quality really was atrocious. Add to that the fact that there are 1000+ footnotes and endnotes (not to mention the footnotes within footnotes), and the indices, and you can see why just getting it typeset is a huge labor of love.
Correction, endnotes within footnotes.
Some Christian writers hold firm to the principle that all scriptural teaching must be accepted as authoritative, yet, at times, the practice does not follow the theory. One of the more curious lapses in an active acceptance of the authority of scripture can be found among some modern Evangelicals who are very firm in their defense of the authority of scripture. They strongly defend what could be called the “doctrinal basics”; for example, the divinity of Jesus or the importance of the atonement. “Where the scripture teaches,” they would say, “there we must believe, because the authority of scripture is supreme.” Yet they will often neglect to apply this principle to scriptural teaching about personal relationships and Christian social structure. In these areas they feel content to supplant scriptural teaching with the norms of our society, often without seeing any need to justify what they are doing. These Evangelicals are committed to fight in defense of scripture in the places where it was being challenged vigorously fifty years ago, but they do not uphold scriptural authority in many of the places where it is being most vigorously challenged today. (Clark, ch. 15, “Bypassing Scriptural Authority”)
Indeed. Once in a while, when considering audio books, I’ve wondered what an audio version of the Encyclopedia Britannica would be like! How would you ever handle things like the footnotes in Clark’s work??
Nevertheless . . .
As I’ve progressed into my dotage, and my vision has progressively deteriorated, I’ve realized that the day is near when audio books are the only way I might “read” them. I have a good friend who is blind from birth. He makes a good living as a translator between English and German. All his reading is via technology that renders text into audio.
Is there a market for an audio version of Clark’s work? I have no idea how one would determine such a thing.
As to actually producing such a work - well, internet communities such as this one might easily contain the vocal assets for such a project. Consider:
A goodly number of the members of this community rely upon their speaking voices for the lion’s share of their ministry. Even their income!
Admitted - this alone does not guarantee that each such member of this community has vocal skills (enunciation, pacing, ability to vocally “punctuate” what he reads out loud) suitable for producing an audio version of any text. But, surely there are more than a few.
If an audio version of the main book text (excluding footnotes) were undertaken, it could be parceled out to many readers, not merely one. Could not Warhorn field an audition? Put a challenging chapter out there and ask for volunteers to prepare and submit their own audio file (an MP3) on which they read the chapter.
With sufficient qualified readers, the project might come together fairly quickly.
I would apply to be a reader
Ich auch. Moi aussi. Yo también. Anch’io. 私も. أنا أيضا. גם .אני я тоже.
Here’s a quote from Clark’s section on sociology and anthropology, in which he addresses the vague notion of supposedly “matriarchal” societies:
Some people respond skeptically to these assertions because they have a vague notion that some societies have been “matriarchal”—that is, the governing authorities have been women. However, anthropologists unanimously dismiss matriarchy as a characteristic of any known society, present or past. As stated by Rosaldo, “The issues involved here are complex, but the evidence of contemporary anthropology gives scant support to an argument for matriarchy.” There are two main reasons for the persistent confusion about matriarchy. First, some primitive tribes have myths which tell of a time in their ancient past when women ruled. Anthropologists now generally regard these myths as justifications for some current aspect of the tribal life, such as male authority, and not as historically reliable tradition. Myths about Amazonian warrior women are also considered unhistorical by anthropologists. Secondly, anthropologists once used the term “matriarchy” to describe societies which are today called matrilineal or matrifocal. Matrilineal societies are those which trace lineage through the mother and not the father. Matrifocal societies are those in which the female role receives special attention and honor. Modern anthropologists no longer use the term “matriarchal” to describe these societies precisely because it implies that the women of the society actually govern the overall life of the group. In fact, men are the overall governing authorities in both matrilineal and matrifocal societies. Thus, the idea that matriarchal societies did or do exist is a popular misunderstanding, and a notion that modern anthropologists reject. (Clark, ch. 17, “Men’s and Women’s Differences: Social Structural Characteristics”)
Deep awareness of the Garden of Eden when Adam listened to Eve
Fascinating and helpful section from Clark’s cultural analysis setting up what it means to apply Scripture’s teaching on manhood and womanhood in modern society:
A second historical error is the view that women have been deprived of full human rights since the beginning of human society and have only won these rights within the past two centuries—since the beginning of movements for women’s rights. In the past two centuries women have attained equal access to education; full rights to inherit, own, sell, and control property; full rights of citizenship; and access to most professions with equal compensation. Women may not always be treated equally with men in these areas, but these rights have a fundamental legal and moral recognition. To be sure, women in most societies did not have these “rights” before 1900. However, this is because traditional society made little or no use of the category of “individual rights” for anyone—men or women. This concept is an aspect of the shift from a society based on relational groupings to a society based on a mass of individuals.
When women are given “rights,” they are being treated as full individuals in a mass society. These “rights” are a way of applying the social structure of technological society—with all its advantages and disadvantages—to women. Giving women “equal rights” is a way of weakening relational groupings and communal social structure and fitting women into a functional technological society. Before the advent of technological society, men did not have these “individual rights” either; the structure of traditional society made these rights a meaningless category. Traditional society was based instead on the rights of relational groupings, and the position of men and women derived from their personal relationships within these groupings. Women were generally subordinate to men in all traditional and primitive societies, but men were also generally subordinate to other men, and no one would have thought of such a subordinate role in terms of limited individual rights. As technological society developed, the basic pattern of individualization was applied more slowly to women and children than to men because the family unit was preserved longer than other relational groupings. However, as the family unit is gradually attenuated and functionalized, women are treated increasingly like men and gain their “rights” as full individuals in a mass society. At the same time, however, women have lost the special legal provisions (both privileges and limitations) which came from their position in a society structured on families. (Clark, ch. 18, “The New Social Environment: Technological Society”)
What an awesome quote. Thanks for sharing, Alex!
I remember reading something GK Chesterton wrote about women gaining the right to vote. I don’t remember the particulars, but, in general, his point was that giving women the right to vote didn’t make them more powerful or consequential. It made the political structure in our society more powerful and consequential.
I think it’s true.
Every quote you post makes me want to read this book even more. I’m really looking forward to Warhorn Classics
Just to be clear, Man and Woman in Christ is not a Warhorn Classics project. Warhorn Classics will be an online repository of classic Christian works in the public domain (mostly older than 100 years old). We have the privilege of publishing Man and Woman in Christ with the permission of Mr. Clark, who is still living.
And Chapter Nineteen really serves as an excellent introduction to modernist ideologies in general. I’m blown away by how helpful it is in understanding our culture even beyond the specific topic of men’s and women’s roles.
Gotcha. In that case I’m excited for both Warhorn Classics and Man and Woman in Christ.
Here’s another helpful observation which transcends the topic of men and women. This from a footnote:
A pressure is exerted against all social roles in technological society, with the result that many traditional social roles begin to look more like functional roles. The father-son relationship is one example. Another example can be found in the role of the Christian pastor. One reason that modern Christians have a difficulty in understanding the meaning of “elder” or “pastor” in the New Testament is their tendency to see the position as a set of functions to be performed in a social institution rather than as a role of leadership and care in a communal relationship. (Clark, ch. 21, “The Bases of a Christian Approach Today”)
Oh no, now I really need to add this book to my pile.
One of the more frequent objections to social roles in general is the view that social roles are limiting. They prescribe patterns of social behavior without consulting the preferences of the individuals involved and without allowing them the opportunity to take a previously uncharted course. Social roles are limiting, but they are limiting in the way any structure is limiting. The human skeleton limits the human body in its movement, but it also makes the human being stronger and more versatile than the amoeba. A highway limits the places a car can go, but the observance of that limitation allows the development of a travel network that yields far greater mobility than overland travel at will. Roles too are limiting. (Clark, ch. 21, “The Bases of a Christian Approach Today”)