Book Review: “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism” by Carl F. H. Henry

If we went for a coffee, I doubt we would talk about this book. We might… if you brought it up!

How did I get it?

I bought this one. A while ago. Like, a couple of years ago. Before we moved to Florida in 2021. It was because I’ve heard people talk about it. What triggered me to buy it was a podcast from Russell Moore where he mentioned that the concerns that Carl F. H. Henry raised were still valid.

I thought it might be a good idea to find out for myself exactly what those concerns were.

What’s it about?

I read it a few months ago, and my memory was fuzzy, and I only had one paragraphed marked in the book. So, I decided to ask my new AI assistant (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) to summarize it for us:

"The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism" by Carl F. H. Henry is a significant work in 20th century evangelical theology. The main point of this book, published in 1947, is a critique of fundamentalist Christianity's withdrawal from social and cultural engagement.

Henry argued that fundamentalism had become too isolated and focused solely on personal salvation while neglecting broader social issues. He called for a more comprehensive Christian worldview that addressed contemporary problems and engaged with modern culture.

The author contended that Christians should be involved in social reform and intellectual discourse, rather than retreating from these spheres. He believed that the gospel had implications for all areas of life, including politics, economics, and social justice.

Henry's work was influential in spurring the neo-evangelical movement, which sought to maintain orthodox Christian beliefs while also engaging more constructively with the wider world.

Claude crushes ChatGpt if you didn’t know. And, it’s free.

Anyway, here’s the quote from the book that I had marked. Page 39 reads:

“Today, Protestant Fundamentalism although heir-apparent to the supernaturalist gospel of the Biblical and Reformation minds, if a stranger, in its predominant spirit, to the vigorous social interest of its ideological forebears. Modern Fundamentalism does not explicitly sketch the social implications of its message for the non-Christian world; it does not challenge the injustices of the totalitarianisms, the secularisms of modern educations, the evils of racial hatred, the wrongs of current-labor management relations, the inadequate bases of international dealings. It has ceased to challenge Caesar and Rome, as though in futile resignation and submission to the triumphant Renaissance mood. The apostolic Gospel stands divorced from a passion to right the world. The Christian social imperative is today in the hands of those who understand it in sub-Christian terms.”

I asked Claude who were the main figures in the neo-evangelical movement. It listed: Carl F. H. Henry, Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, Edward Carnell, George Ladd, Francis Schaeffer, John Stott, and Kenneth Kantzer.

What did I think of the book?

It’s mixed. The topic is spot on. The book itself was hard to read. The author isn’t writing for people like me. He’s writing for people in the academy. The sentences are long and complex in structure. The vocabulary is dense.

The topic, though, is still very relevant. At least, the way I understand the issue he’s raising. It’s possible that I missed something. I see the problem in two ways.

First, because our pastors and church leaders have been a-political for so long, it’s seeped into the pews. Evangelical Christians as a whole haven’t been engaged in political issues other than abortion. It’s true that there are some churches and church leaders that are very political, but it’s not the whole. Politics and social issues rarely come up in our pulpits. It’s mostly individual issues or family issues. Policy isn’t discussed that often.

Second, when a pastor or church leader does make a political statement, he/she is often shunned publicly and privately. A month ago, I saw this on X.com in a short exchange I had with a colleague from a church in California. I was stunned how he had equated living in America with the Babylonian captivity.

In America, our ancestors bequeathed us rights as citizens. We have a patriotic duty to be involved in self-government. Furthermore, we have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to preserve (or retrieve) those rights and freedoms for the next generation.

We absolutely need to start teaching people everything Jesus taught. And, that includes what He taught about politics, economics and social justice.

I recognize that this is difficult because we don’t know what the actual truth of a situation is sometimes. We know what the Scripture says. We don’t know what’s actually happening in our communities because trust in our news organizations has been eroded.

Am I now an example of how to do this? Nope. Not at all. But, I’m willing to fail forward and start moving in this direction.

At least my conscience won’t be uneasy.

Conclusion:

Just like Claude says… this was an important book. It did start a conversation, one that Russell Moore (for better or worse) is still having. I’m grateful for Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer and John Stott for leading the way. I’m not as familiar with the other names.

What do you think? Do you agree with Carl (and my) assessment? What does the way forward look like to you?

soon!

andy