Book Summary: "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism" by Carl Henry
Christians are certainly pilgrims in the world, but they are ambassadors also.
The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. By Carl F. H. Henry. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. 978-0-8028-2661-9
Introduction
Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry (January 22, 1913 – December 7, 2003) was a titanic figure of American Evangelicalism in the twentieth century. About five years after graduating from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (at 29 years old), he published The Uneasy Conscience – something of a young general’s war strategy for engaging culture, academia, and politics. Henry was a leading voice for American Evangelicals, especially those with fundamentalist convictions.
For the next five decades, Henry put his strategy into action, and he urged and helped others to do the same – fostering the creation of the National Association of Evangelicals, Fuller Theological Seminary, the Evangelical Theological Society, and Christianity Today. While most of these institutions have drifted from their fundamentalist moorings, they were born out of conservative Christian convictions that sought to promote both personal relationship with Christ and public engagement for the common good.
Summary
In his foreword to the second edition of The Uneasy Conscience, Richard Mouw wrote, “Yes, the evangelicalism of the past half-century or so had failed in its intellectual and cultural obligations. But there was hope!”[1] Indeed, Mouw said that Henry’s book was “an invitation to an evangelical cultural involvement that was based solidly on the kind of profound theological reflection that could only be sustained by a social program that was closely linked to a systematic commitment to the nurturing of the life of the mind… [reconnecting] grassroots evangelical activism and carefully reasoned theological orthodoxy.”[2] In Henry’s own words, this book is “an application of, not a revolt against, fundamentals of the faith.”[3] Henry believed Christians are certainly “pilgrims” in the world but “ambassadors also.”[4]
Henry’s war strategy was an overall effort for Christians to apply their conservative (or “fundamentalist”) convictions in the world around them – both far and near. Henry wrote, “The church needs a progressive Fundamentalism with a social message.”[5] He wanted his contemporaries to understand that a Christian worldview should embrace “world questions, societal needs, [and] personal education,” all rising out of the same Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) that motivates evangelism.[6] While Henry argued that “the apparent lack of any social passion in Protestant Fundamentalism” was “more vocal than actual,” he also noted there was a “strand” of “pessimism” running through them.[7] Henry wanted to promote the “Christian social imperative” while maintaining distance from liberal Christianity’s “Social Gospel.”[8]
Throughout the book, Henry contrasts his vision and strategy with that commonly associated with Fundamentalists in his day. Speaking the language of Fundamentalists themselves, Henry called upon them to embrace the “theologico-ethical emphasis” displayed in the lives of the earliest Christians.[9] “Fundamentalism in the main,” said Henry, “fails to make relevant to the great moral problems in twentieth-century global living the implications of its redemptive message.”[10] In contrast, Henry argued, “No insistence on a doctrinal framework alone was sufficient [in apostolic Christianity]; always this was coupled with the most vigorous assault against evils, so that the globe stood anticipatively at the judgment seat of Christ.”[11]
Henry’s solution to the contemporary perception that American Evangelicals were deaf and blind to societal ills was for those Evangelicals to urge “men and nations to come to terms with Jesus.”[12] Of course, Henry called for a vigorous evangelistic effort, but he also wanted Evangelicals to publicly advance biblical ethics. For Henry, the fact that Christianity may not overtake the world until Christ comes was no reason to neglect “an effort to win as many [civilizations] as possible by the redemptive power of Christ.”[13] Evangelicals could “engender reformation here, and overthrow paganism there.”[14]
Henry advocated for “two great academic changes” for Evangelicalism in order to carry out his strategy.[15] First, “it must develop a competent literature in every field of study, on every level from the grade school through the university.”[16] Henry wanted Evangelicals educated well in their own worldview. Second, “evangelicalism must… press the Christian world-life view upon the masses.”[17] Henry wanted Evangelicals to educate others in the only true and good worldview – namely their own.
Conclusion
More than seventy-five years have passed since Carl Henry called American Evangelicals to a vigorous engagement with society, not only evangelism but also social reform. The latter half of the twentieth century surely demonstrates that many of them heard and answered Henry’s call. From a position of apparent majority in America, Evangelicals created institutions, initiated programs, and even largely associated themselves with a particular political party for the purpose of pushing for policies that would forward their mission.
Henry’s strategy also prepared for a day when Evangelicals might not be the majority in America. During such a time, Henry called Evangelicals to “express their opposition to evils in a ‘formula of protest,’ conquering heartily in the assault on social wrongs, but insisting upon the regenerative context as alone able to secure a permanent rectification of such wrongs.”[18] At the core, Henry’s strategy always emphasized the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the necessity of spiritual rebirth. Both in good times and bad, Evangelicals ought to be evangelists; but given the opportunity, Henry believed that Evangelicals ought also to be social reformers.
[1] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xi.
[2] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xiii.
[3] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xviii.
[4] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xix.
[5] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xx.
[6] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. xxi.
[7] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. pp. 2-3 n. 6.
[8] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 22.
[9] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 31.
[10] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 30.
[11] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 30.
[12] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 62.
[13] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 67.
[14] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 67.
[15] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 68.
[16] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 68.
[17] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 68.
[18] Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. p. 79.