ARTICLES
Q TALKS
DISCOVER Q
EVENTS
Q Washington, DC 2012
Q Sessions | Practices
Past Events
RESOURCES
Books
Studies
Church Leaders
Speaking
PARTICIPATE
Collaborate Online
Praxis Accelerator
Host Conversations
Church
Business
Education
Social Sector
Arts + Entertainment
Science + Tech
Government
Media
Cities
Gospel
Restorers
Tweet
Church
Still Uneasy After All These Years
The Legacy of Carl Henry
by
Russell Moore
Other profiles in the Q Legacy Series include
Francis Shaeffer
,
Fred Rogers
and
C.S. Lewis
-----
It's a little book by a dead man from the last generation, and it just might be the road-map for the future of American Christianity. I'm referring to the late theologian Carl F.H. Henry's 1947 book "
The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism
." This slim little paperback's importance might not seem obvious in a digital whirling world of contemporary Christians, but the issues Henry raised over sixty years ago are more relevant than ever.
When most people think of Carl Henry, they tend to think of his magnum opus, the six-volume "
God, Revelation, and Authority
," which dealt with the major philosophical and theological challenges to Christian theism and the biblical canon. Some remember his work as a pioneer, along with Billy Graham, in the explosion of the post-World War II evangelical movement. From his place as a founding faculty member at Fuller Seminary to his role as first editor of "Christianity Today" and beyond, Henry was the intellectual godfather of the cause. But, in my view, "Uneasy Conscience" is what matters most for us these days.
Just after World War II, Henry, then a young rising star in the Christian firmament, issued a jarring manifesto calling for a theologically-informed and socially-engaged evangelicalism. Henry warned that American Christianity, on the Right and on the Left, was headed for irrelevance, toward being the equivalent of a wilderness cult. His agenda wasn't simply an updating of style and presentation (although he had written a book on church publicity). The issues at root were about misguided views on the kingdom of God.
He was right. And he still is.
Henry was concerned about two fronts: detached fundamentalism and social gospel liberalism. The liberals, Henry insisted, had replaced the gospel with a political program. Instead of seeing the primary mission of the church in terms of God's reconciling work in Christ to forgive sins, the liberals were busy grinding out policy papers on nuclear policy. Liberals saw the kingdom as a program for public righteousness, often enacted legislatively.
At the other extreme, though, Henry warned, conservatives over-reacted to the social gospel. They spoke of the kingdom of God, but acted as though it were wholly future. These conservatives embraced an otherworldly vision of salvation, that was mostly about getting souls to heaven at death. They held to an inordinately spiritual vision of the church, in which the church's mission was about merely "spiritual" matters such as evangelism and addressing personal morality.
By severing social concerns from the gospel, the conservatives had, Henry warned, conceded these issues to liberal Protestants and, ultimately, to their more radical successors. Neither side, Henry argued, understood the "already" and "not yet" tension of the kingdom of God, a tension that was about more than how we view the last things. It is about also how we see salvation and the church.
In 1947, an evangelical consensus on the kingdom seemed impossible. After all, the coalition of conservative Protestants was united around the "fundamentals" of biblical inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, personal regeneration, and so forth. But these evangelicals often couldn't agree about how such questions even as whether the Sermon on the Mount applies to believers today or only to Israel in a future millennial kingdom.
Remarkably, that has changed. In the years since, evangelical theology has embraced, at near universal consensus levels, a vision of the kingdom that is both "already and not yet." The kingdom understandings that previously kept fundamentalists isolated have now been corrected by a more biblical portrait of the church, and the cosmic scope of salvation. This provides the basis for a renewed and biblically informed evangelical public theology. While the theory has developed in positive ways, though, Henry's primary issue remains. Without a holistic vision of the kingdom of God, evangelicals will continue to split up the gospel in ways that can make Jesus unrecognizable to the culture around us. While there are few arguments these days about whether the Lord's Prayer applies to the church age or whether the church is "Plan B" in the purposes of God, other, similar confusions remain.
On the one hand, the tactics of the old social gospel liberals have been inherited, ironically enough, by the Religious Right. Once again, in many quarters, a political program has replaced the gospel. Just listen to Christian talk radio for an hour and see where the emphasis is.
On the other hand, there is still a growing body of Christians who speak as though the kingdom is either wholly future or wholly spiritual. Look at the ongoing efforts to divide concern for evangelism from a concern for justice, the mission of the church in caring for people's souls from caring for their bodies. There are rarely prophecy charts involved anymore, but it is, at heart, the same old dispensationalist hermeneutic involved, seeking to "rightly divide" the parts of Jesus' ministry that apply to us now from those that will only apply later. In some cases, there is outright suspicion about "kingdom talk" at all, for fear that "kingdom" is a stalking horse for doing away with the gospel.
When evangelicals contrast the "gospel" with the "kingdom," we are right back at Scofield, without even knowing it. And, as in Henry's day, this means that concern for poverty, family stability, homelessness, orphan care, racial reconciliation, and a host of other concerns will then be filled in by those who deny the central truths of the gospel. And that's a shame.
Henry's "Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism" is perhaps the most important evangelical book of the twentieth-century. It is just as relevant as it was in 1947, and should be read again by all those with a serious commitment to applying a kingdom vision to every aspect of life. The kingdom Jesus inaugurated spoke to the whole person, to spiritual lostness, to physical sickness, to material poverty, to the need for community. A church that joins Jesus in preaching the kingdom will too. We need that reminder every generation, perhaps especially now. The evangelical conscience is, after all, still uneasy after all these years.
-----
In your opinion, were “detached fundamentalism” and “social gospel liberalism” problems in Henry’s day? What about today? Do you see a tension between the ideas of “kingdom” and “gospel?”
-----
Editor’s Note:
The picture above of Carl Henry is quoted from the archives of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College
.
Tweet
Comments
Troy Konicki
I think the divide is simply due to a lack of focus on ecumenical dialogue and prayer. I think everyone agrees that the "gospel" truth informs the "kingdom" living and that the two could not be more vital to each other. But, just as with every generation of Christians since the church fathers and their name-calling, "heretic, Judaizer, etc," there is a sense of fear and bitterness that accompanies pride and ignorance. Fear of the unknown and bitterness towards something different that may invalidate one's own "personal Jesus."
Paul says this himself when warning Timothy (1 Tim. 1), "don't mess with arguments and law-defining....true doctrine, true Christianity leads to UNITY."
It's from that unity that we can truly become the church and truly understand the beautiful partnership of the gospel and the kingdom. It's not a matter of being "right" as much as it is communally reaching out to God for the answers and the definitions of "right." So, instead of name-calling, heretic-izing, and seperating, the church must again make the effort towards unity.
Chris Donato
I think it was Niebhur who posited that “detached fundamentalism” and “social gospel liberalism” were two sides of the same coin. And the ironic tools of social conservatives today illustrates this well.
The whole business of how to engage culture will continue to argued about until the end of the age. For our day, and in my opinion, Hunter's newish
http://www.amazon.com/Change-World-Tragedy-Possibility-Christianity/dp/0199730806/
">book on the subject gets at how to forge ahead (never suffering under the delusion that our best efforts will usher in some kind of utopia, but never ceasing to enact God's shalom in every sphere of our lives).
In a certain sense, I do think there's a priority in these matters, i.e., forgiveness in Christ (ought to) necessarily lead to social reconciliation/justice.
Chalz
I liked the idea of your comparing the two sides and seeing how we can better ourselves in this current culture and time period. Unfortunately, you only spent a mere paragraph and a line or two from another talking about the "liberal" approach that concerned Henry and the rest of the article (probably 4/5th's) on how he felt about the "fundamentalist" approach. You even mention that the "religious right" adopted a particular tactic of the "old social gospel" movement and dove into political things. Seems to be a lot of critique for the "right" and a mere glance at the "left." The bottom line is there are many things to be said about the pasts of both of these groups and how "humanity" (humans who inhabited those institutions) got in the way...which has always been the case. When we preach "preference" instead of true Spiritual "conviction" that matches with the Word we will always get into trouble. A more even handed approach to critique would have been more profitable.
Charles
Kudos to Q for focusing in on Henry. Most people don't know of or recognize his legacy, but it is profound.
Harry Jarrett
Thanks for this article. Very helpful. And Yoderesk it seems as well. I am appreciating your site. Just started following.
Randy Heffner
Chalz - I don't disagree with your contention, but I'm wondering: Rather than simply critiquing the post, can you bring to the discussion some analysis of the left's missteps. It would provide the even-handedness your comment yearns for, and it may help us all to see the way forward more clearly.
Thomas Duku
all this blogs fantastic, amazing and incredible i appreciate your SITE. now following
Leave a Comment
Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verify Code:
Please keep me informed with the latest updates from Q
ALSO BY RUSSELL MOORE
Immigration and the Gospel
Government
God, Freedom, and "The Adjustment Bureau"
Arts + Entertainment
Is the Orphan My Neighbor?
Gospel
ALSO IN CHURCH
The Christian and Muslim Divide
by Imam Feisal and Gabe Lyons
A Telling Confession Off I-10 Eastbound
by Gabe Lyons
Concerning the Church: Death to Innovation
by JR Kerr