In my last blogpost, I introduced my famous professor Carl F.H. Henry who in 1947 spearheaded the theology of the evangelical movement that today is unrecognizable due to large-scale mission drift. If you did not see my introductory post, you can read it here. Today, I want to offer a thought-provoking glimpse of what Dr. Henry wrote in his history-shaping classic, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. I will end by telling you something that Dr. Henry confessed in his old age.
Afflicting Dr. Henry’s “uneasy conscience” was his pained concern that fundamentalists had “not applied the genius” of the gospel “constructively” to the most pressing problems of society. Carl Henry wanted Christians, together as a social movement, to spell out in detail and to demonstrate with our lives that “Christianity” is “the obvious solution to world problems.” For instance, it bothered Dr. Henry that fundamentalist Christians were standing on the wrong side of racism. It agitated him that Bible-believing Christians in the first half of the twentieth century were not defending the labor class against fat cat executives. However, he also did not like that Christians weren’t standing up for the lawful rights of business owners and managers. Carl Henry wanted righteousness, observable right living, to result at the top, middle, and bottom of society. (For those who might be thinking, “Well, he should have instead championed equality to the point of there being no different strata in society,” please remember that Jesus said in Mark 14:7, “The poor you will always have with you.”)
Rest assured, Dr. Henry believed in the fundamentals of the Christian faith: God as Creator, Redeemer, Judge; Jesus Christ alone as Lord and Savior; salvation through the atonement of Jesus’ blood, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc. But Carl F.H. Henry was not a fundamentalist. Mincing no words, Dr. Henry sharply announced that “fundamentalism,” by separating itself and standing in opposition to a hurting world, had become “the modern priest and Levite, by-passing suffering humanity.” Carl Henry wanted the Church to be a Good Samaritan, not in spite of Christian doctrine but BECAUSE of it.
As Dr. Henry saw it, theological conservatives and theological liberals both had it wrong. He thought theological conservatives were right about the authority of Scripture, but wrong in their understanding of it ethically. Fundamentalists (i.e., theological conservatives) despaired on the basis of their belief that things are going to get worse on earth until the Day Christ returns. Dr. Henry called out the irony that fundamentalists, of all people, were the very ones who lacked hope. Is there hope for people today in this howling desert? No. According to fundamentalism, there is no hope at a practical, lived level for the injured man lying on the road. No hope for the oppressed. The only hope of the gospel is hope for eternal life AFTER earth passes away.
As for theological liberals, they were right to see and address social evil. But they overlooked the fact that evil spawns in the human heart that needs to be saved individually by the Lord Jesus. Liberals went so far in reacting to fundamentalists that they became anti-legalists who minimized or forgot the law of Christ. Liberals wanted reform and saw themselves as reformers of society, but not within a framework of supernaturalism. Evolutionary progressivism seemed credible to them. Yet liberals denied Christ’s virgin birth and denied the reliability of Scripture. Some even denied Christ’s resurrection. Liberals touted hope on earth apart from publicly heralding the gospel.
Evangelical theology was meant to be the happy medium; social activism grounded in the truth of divine revelation. Dr. Henry wanted believers to be so theologically astute that we become the embodiment of true Christian ethics. Right theology is what gives way to right living here and now.
On a personal note, I will tell you that in his twilight years Dr. Henry lived with an ache of regret. In one of our conversations, I was struck by the earnestness with which he expressed his support of me in my role as a leader in the Evangelism Department at Willow Creek Community Church. It was in that context that I found out directly how sorely Carl Henry regretted not spending more time himself doing personal evangelism.
Have you noticed that the evangelical movement has become way less evangelistic? Next blog, I intend to share five ways in which the evangelical movement has drifted. For now, I want to invite you to consider signing up for the course, Fulfilling the Great Commission. What better way to start the new year than to refocus on sharing the gospel, perhaps with more theological understanding of it than ever before?
Comments