InREVIEW: Book Look
By Michael J. Breznau | 2021
Henry, Carl F. H., The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. (Grand Rapids: 1947; Reprint Eerdmans 2003)
As the dust from WWII settled across the world, Carl F.H. Henry observed both a crisis and an opportunity. In 1947, the crisis was that fundamentalists (or evangelicals)[1] had long-forsaken service in societal needs for the sole work of preaching to individual needs, i.e. personal conversion to Christ. He argued, “For the first protracted period in its history, evangelical Christianity stands divorced from the great social reform movements” (p. 36). Social issues were many (“aggressive warfare, political statism, racial intolerance, the liquor traffic, labor-management exploitation…” p. 32, cf. 78), but were almost entirely being addressed by theologically liberal churches that had long-abandoned the central tenets (fundamentals) of the Christian faith.[2] In the wake of the liberal Social Gospel movement, Fundamentalists cut-off the hand of gospel-wrought mercy and justice for the sake of retaining the gospel message. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism identifies this dissonance and seeks to apply the Word of God in a fresh proposal for evangelistic faithfulness and socio-political activism (p. 11).
The opportunity was that WWI and WWII had crushed the utopian dreams and aspirations of liberal protestants who had previously promoted the Social Gospel as a way to usher in the kingdom of God on earth, albeit through natural not supernatural means. This liberal social-religion had been tried and found devastatingly lacking. Therefore, Fundamentalists could seize the day with a robust preaching of the gospel of Christ in all its supernatural power to save individual sinners, while at the same time serving the needs of humankind in the love of Christ with all of its social implications (p. 32-34). Henry’s fear was that unless we regain this lost ground, evangelicals “will be reduced either to a tolerated cult status or . . . a despised and oppressed sect” (p. 9).
In Harold Ockenga’s introduction for the book he eloquently wrote, “It is impossible to shut the Jesus of pity, healing, service, and human interest from a Biblical theology” (p. 13). Therefore, Henry offers a brief but well-argued approach to Christian proclamation and serving that embodies Christ’s care for the whole person and for the broader community. In eight concise chapters, he entreats fellow evangelicals to hear this sermonic essay not with criticism, but with hearts united around a common cause – the flourishing of redemptive Christianity (see p. 10-11).
Strong Points
Central strong points of this short, pithy book are as follows. First, Henry offers a robust presentation of the imperatives we must follow that flow from the redemptive theology of the Old and New Testaments (esp. p. 39-43; p. 54-57). Henry’s resolute Christian orthodoxy bleeds through every page. Our call to serve as “world-changers” (his words) must be grounded in the reality that “the revitalization of modern evangelicalism will not come by a discard of its doctrinal convictions and a movement in the direction of liberalism” (p. 63). Our final guide is God’s Word.
Second, he gives a capable, quick-witted dissection of the strawman arguments posited by liberalism (see p. 60-61). For example, does any Fundamentalist think “God dictated [the Bible] without respecting the personalities of the writers…” (p. 60)? Of course not, Henry counters.
Third and most importantly, He provides several key constructive statements upon which evangelicals might build ministry initiatives: “That Christianity opposes any and every evil, personal and social, and must never be represented as in any way tolerant of such evil; (2) That Christianity opposes to such evil, as the only sufficient formula for its resolution, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. It rejects the charge that the Fundamentalist ideology logically involves an indifference to social evils, and presses the contention that the non-evangelical ideology involves an essential inability to right the world order. It is discerning anew that an assault on global evils is not only consistent with, but rather is demanded by, its proper world-life view” (p. 45; see also p. 57, 79). If affirmed, these principles may serve as building blocks for a holistically Christian social reformation.
Weaker Points
The text is laced with predictions and concerned – or even fearful – outlooks. One notable prediction has proven to be quite inaccurate. Henry believed that conservative-dispensational premillennialism would wane in popularity through the following generation as preachers focused more on the high points of eschatology by discarding “dogmatism on details” (p. 51). However, the opposite proved true as the 1950-1990s were the high watermark era of modern dispensational teaching popularized by books, conferences, and radio shows the world over.
At the risk of chronological snobbery, the 21st century reader may find some of his critiques short-sighted. He offers a brief evaluation of church music by dogmatizing a particular musical genre and style as sacred and holy, while harshly disregarding genres of other cultures or local styles (see p. 19). His outlook on pressing social issues within the church are, at points, rather quaint, i.e. the theatre, smoking, and mixed-company swimming (e.g. p. 21). While sensual frivolity and vice are certainly possibilities within these categories, the conversation, today, has a very different focus.
His terms lack timeless definition. “Redemptive” or “redemptive element” are used profusely throughout the book, but he assumes the reader’s contextual understanding (e.g. p. 72-74). Additionally, differences between “Fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism” are undefined. The contemporary reader is left wondering if no identifiable difference was present in 1947.
Reflection and Interaction
Reading a book addressed to time-sensitive issues some seventy-four years after its publishing offers a unique perspective. Let’s examine three reflection questions.
Have We Learned Anything?
The warning is clear: if evangelicalism does not cease from acting as the “modern priest and Levite, by-passing suffering humanity” (p. 17), then we will quickly be relegated to the uninfluential role of a despised sect. We cannot merely attack those with whom we disagree. We must offer a profoundly better alternative (cf. p. 13, 17). But over the past seventy-four years, have we heeded this advice? Conservative Christianity is more despised across North America than ever before. Racial bigotry still pervades many church halls while the ill and impoverished continue to be ignored. Do we speak only of individual sin/evil and not social-collective evil (p. 20, 26, 30, 32)? From all appearances, we are still in grave danger of a “pharisaical fundamentalism” that is “doctrinally sound but ethically unsound” (p. 63).
Indeed, the gospel of Christ begins with each person coming to grips with the person and work of Jesus Christ (p. 43). But Christ’s transforming power never can be contained to individual bite-sized portions, but rather spreads as a light into the darkness of communities, states, and nations (p. 42-34). One who personally experiences Christ’s love does not hesitate to neighborly give Christ’s love. At the same time, we are in danger of only speaking into the socio-political arena when it serves to preserve our way of life. Just like our 1940-50s forebears, we are quick to condemn communists while “exhibiting a contrasting silence about the evils of a Capitalistic system from which the redemptive reference is largely abstracted” (p. 33). If this stings our hearts and stomps on our toes, we must ask again: “Have we learned anything?”
What is Our Goal?
Ever the preacher, Carl F.H. Henry declares, “A globe-changing passion certainly characterized the early church . . . A Christianity without a passion to turn the world upside down is not reflective of apostolic Christianity (p. 28). If our favored answer is “religious escapism, then the salt has lost its savor” (p. 66). We must live on mission – in every facet of life.
But what is our end goal for the mission? In the final third of Henry’s essay, he proclaims, “If historic Christianity is again to compete as a vital world ideology…” (p. 68) then we must be active in social reform. While justice and social evils should be the concern of every Christian, is it scripturally valid to assume our target is to remain competitive on the world stage of ideologies? Again, he contends we must “press the Christian world-life view upon the masses” (p. 71) and ‘go along’ with all worthy reform movements . . . to give them a proper leadership” (p. 78). His arguments could easily be construed as a call to political takeover as a means of social Christianization. Shall we return to the days of Constantine and seek a unified church-state in order to “press” Christianity onto everyone? Such a schema has, historically, proven to be disastrous.
While Henry’s call to a holistic gospel mission resonates with our present context, his introductory-level ideas for this mission are rather disappointing. He develops three solutions: (1) Christian education – we must form primary, secondary, university, and graduate level schools that rival the academic standards of the most elite secular institutions, while maintaining strong evangelical doctrine (p. 71-73), (2) Public Example – we must move the world by our high standards of morality because “to the extent that any society is leavened with Christian conviction, it becomes a more hospitable environment for Christian expansion” (p. 72), and (3) Political Involvement – we must present men (or women) into world statesmanship with biblical convictions and dare not silently give way to a godless rule (p .73). He further argues for a pragmatic unity – a single voice in these efforts (p. 81). Yet we must ask, “What is our goal?” As we look at all the Christian education institutions, public pressing of Christian convictions upon non-Christians, and slurry of Christian politics in North America, we are rather disenchanted. We have run down the trail of fighting for influence and seeking credibility for our ideology. Are we any better off for all these efforts? Or is there a better way that aligns more closely with the steps of Jesus toward the littlest and the least?
What is Our Role?
Henry sprinkled in discussion about eschatological debates, particularly, how does our view of end times impact our response to the world and all the people of the world right now (e.g. premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism, cf. p. 29, 43). As a premillennialist, I recognize my preaching may lean toward training “enlightened spectators, rather than empowered ambassadors” (p. 50). He correctly argued, “Whatever their view of the kingdom, the early Christians did not permit it to interfere with their world-changing zeal” (p. 43).
So how to preach the “already – but not yet” kingdom with all its present implications? (p. 51-52). Preach like Jesus. And how do we form our teaching around the pedagogy of Christ? To this end, Henry beautiful prescribes the Lord’s Prayer. We are people of the future Kingdom hope (“Your kingdom come”), while at the same time servants of the present Kingdom mission (“on earth as it is in heaven…” cf. p. 60, 65). He writes, “The extent to which man centers his life and energy in the redemptive King now determines the extent of the divine kingdom in the present age” (p. 54). So, I must ask myself, “How is the Spirit leading me toward a deeper submission to the King’s agenda? How might I make heaven’s agenda my agenda on earth?
In a remarkable turn of events, this formation of gospel ministry seems to be fulfilled in the life of at least one gospel preacher of world-wide reputation. Carl F.H. Henry was looking for a man to bring the gospel to the global stage, “A single voice that speaks for Jesus . . . a single statesman with the convictions of Paul…” (p. 70, cf. p. 64-65). Looking in the rearview mirror, one can see how God used a close colleague and former Wheaton College classmate of Carl F.H. Henry to bring the message and mercy of Jesus the Redeemer to the global stage. Who might that be? A lanky farmer boy with a deep southern drawl: Billy Graham. Who in our generation may God be forming to bring the gospel to the nations? What is your role in the mission?
FOOTNOTES
[1] The author seems to uses the label “Fundamentalist” and “evangelical” quite synonymously in this book. Henry would later appropriate the term “neo-evangelical” to provide a distinction.
[2] Henry wrote, “Whereas once the redemptive gospel was a world-changing message, now it was narrowed to a world-resisting message.” (p. 30). Similarly, “Fundamentalism in revolting against the Social Gospel seemed also to revolt against the Christian social imperative.” (p. 32) He adds an accurate characterization of what would continue to, unfortunately, increase through the 1950s-70s: “Fundamentalists, uneasy about ecclesiastical bondage, are usually more alert to what they oppose, than to what they propose.” (p. 79)
