The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism

by Carl F.H. Henry, Russell Moore (Foreword)

An Influential Guide on Evangelicals' Critical Role in Social Issues

As social problems including prejudice, classism, and war dominated conversations in the 1940s, orthodox Christians became known for their indifference rather than compassionate leadership around the issues. If the gospel has the power to change the world, shouldn't Christians engage in global matters with biblical authority?

In The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, theologian Carl F. H. Henry critiques separatist evangelicals and their absence from the social arena, calling on all Christians to unite humanitarianism with Christ-centered leadership to impact the kingdom of God. With cultural and political analysis that is still timely today, he inspires believers to reject pessimism about the human condition and embrace action, responding to global needs and pointing to Christ as the ultimate solution for every social ill.

Topical Explores social ethics, politics, global order, and more from a Christian perspective Theological: Compares religious liberalism and fundamentalism in culture, reformation, supernaturalism, and redemption Edited Edition: This classic book from Carl F. H. Henry, a prominent figure in evangelicalism, has been updated with a foreword by Russell Moore

Genres: Theology, Christian, Cultural, Nonfiction, Christian Living, Church History, Christianity

112 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1947

About the author

Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry was an American evangelical Christian theologian who served as the first editor-in-chief of the magazine Christianity Today, established to serve as a scholarly voice for evangelical Christianity and a challenge to the liberal Christian Century.

Reviews

[Bill Higley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have a few thousand books on my shelves, and if you took most of them away, I probably wouldn't miss them. But this one, written in 1947, is one I would dearly miss. Carl Henry's words are prophetic. Essentially, he is warning the church about becoming disengaged it the culture / world around it, and thus becoming irrelevant to the world around it. There is much being said & written today about justice; that is, justice from a biblical, or ecclesiastical, perspective. And some of it is pretty good, but I wish they would just go back and read, and live, what Henry writes in this text. Had the church done that 60 years ago, we probably wouldn't feel the need to say so much today.

Henry uses the phrase REDEMPTIVE PRESENCE over & over in the text. And those two words perfectly summarize the role & place the church should have: REDEMPTIVE--carrying, living, and giving the Gospel message wherever we find ourselves, and PRESENCE--having an engaging and loving presence in the lives of the people around us (including helping to meet and address their physical, social, emotional and "justice" needs, whatever they may be).

The message of the book can be stated in two words: Redemptive Presence = have it! Do it!

Needless to say, I highly recommend this book.

[Samuel Kassing · Rating 3 out of 5]

This classic treatment felt like it could be written yesterday and then at times significantly dated.

Henry’s conclusion is that gospel proclamation and justice go hand-in-hand. He gives primacy to regeneration in the work of cultural renewal.

Overall I think this is a good book and sadly it shows how evangelicalism is still struggling with these questions 60 years later.

I’m not convinced by the crux of Henry’s argument that mass conversion will inherently produce a just society. I think it’s a key element. But, he merely asserts this without showing “how” it will come about.

3.5 stars

[Micah Lugg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though this was written in 1940's, I appreciate Henry's conviction that the Christian worldview has something to say about everything, even societal and cultural issues. I was challenged by his gospel-motivation to be passionate to help people, while also understanding the world will continue to get worse until Christ comes. He sounds like a Kuyperian premillennialist and I appreciate hearing an author holding that tension.

He says on page 67:
"Evangelicalism can view the future with a sober optimism, grounded not only in the assurance of the ultimate triumph of righteousness, but also in the conviction that divine redemption can be a potent factor in any age. That evangelicalism may not create a fully Christian civilization does not argue against an effort to win as many areas as possible by the redemptive power of Christ."

Again on page 76:
"Any conviction of foredoomed failure does not automatically cancel the missionary obligation. The futility of trying to win all does not mean that it is futile to try to win some areas of influence and life."

Overall, I believe he convincingly argues that those who hold to the life-changing gospel are equipped to change the world through that gospel.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

Great timing on this read since it wrestles with the role of Christians in addressing evil in the world. Thoughtful in his approach, he stays strong on his point of any methodology or formula is a fruitless endeavor unless it’s saturated with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the redemptive power of the Holy Spirit.

“The battle against evil in all its forms must be pressed unsparingly; we [evangelicals / “Fundamentalist” / supernaturalists] must pursue the enemy, in politics, in economics, in science, in ethics - everywhere, in every field, we must pursue relentlessly ... we must meet the foe head-on, girt in the Gospel armor.”

He defines what he means by evangelical, Fundamentalist, and supernaturalist, which is helpful considering these terms carry very different connotations almost 75 years after Carl F. H. Henry wrote this essay.

[Ryan Reed · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a classic that every believer should read multiple times. Henry is as prophetic and prominent today as he was when it was written.

[Chris McMillan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strikingly relevant despite being written 75+ years ago. Henry write of the cultural disengagement seen in Fundamentalism of the 1930s and 1940s prior to the formation of neo-evangelicalism (in which he played a large role). He writes of importance of cultural engagement alongside proper doctrine. Nevertheless, this cultural engagement must emphasize on the redemptive work of Christ as central to any and all solutions.

Quotes:
“Fundamentalism is the modern priest and Levite, by-passing suffering humanity.”

“It remains a question whether one can be perpetually indifferent to the problems of social justice and international order, and develop a wholesome personal ethics.”

“Metaphysics and ethics went everywhere together, in Biblical intent… No insistence on a doctrinal framework alone was sufficient.”

“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.”

[David Branch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ummm….

Wow.

I have been searching for a “smart Baptist.” It seems that I have found one in Carl FH Henry. Uneasy Conscience gave me language I didn’t know I needed concerning cultural engagement & justice.

This is perhaps his most famous work. I can see why. He brilliantly details the tension between isolationist fundamentalism and Protestant liberalism. The options seems to be: isolate from the world or accommodate to it. Henry offers a clear challenge to engage culture with the timeless message of Christianity. Furthermore, these ideas should lead us to a social vision. In his words, for the Christian, “justification by faith alone should lead to justice.”

Unfortunately, “the salt has lost its savour.” This is the problem I see even today and the one Henry began to observe about Fundamentalism. Christianity has little staying influence on culture and most churches and ministry leaders fail to disciple their people towards a robust understanding of what it means engage culture with the gospel.

[Jake Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is phenomenal. Written in 1947 so part of it is dated. However, he really gets at the tendency in evangelicalism to retreat socially and be isolationist. Also, to oppose reform efforts because unregenerate people support them. He really hits at how Christianity bears a redemptive mark that sets us apart and that contributes to reform in society. I appreciated how he showed doctrine has always led to ethical renewal.

[Flynn Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb. An excellent distillation of the key ideas Henry would advocate for throughout the entirety of his career.

[Jacob Aitken]

Ultimately, I am going to disagree with key points of his proposal, but if we are going to err this isn't a bad way.

Henry's book, written sixty years ago, is a clarion call for Christian social action that is grounded in biblical revelation. His thesis is that the Fundamentalist conscience is uneasy because it has not applied biblical truths (11). It sees a radical disjunct between faith and life that is psychologically devastating. It is understandable why conservative Christians have been reluctant to address social concerns: this was the hallowed ground of liberalism, a worldview that denied the central tenets of the Christian faith. Henry's challenge is not only can conservative Christians address social issues without compromising the faith, but that they ought to address these issues because of their faith.

The opening chapters of Henry's work highlight his thesis. He addresses the impasse that evangelicals find them in. Part of this is due to their eschatology. Both premillennialism and amillennialism can't consistently work for social betterment on this earth because this earth is a time-bomb. (Interestingly, he doesn't consider the firepower of evangelical postmillennialism, but that is another matter). This seems to tell the world that "we have the right theology but it can't help your everyday lives." Henry laments that this ought not be the case. The early Christians had a definite social dimension to their preaching--they addressed the painful concerns of humanity with the following two considerations: 1) they did not compromise the message of Christ and 2) the message of Christ demanded such action. In other words, Christ did come to preach justice and address the whole man--granted that the first priority is regeneration--and that a truncated gospel (a gospel that touches the head but not the life) is no gospel at all.

Henry then expounds a brief kingdom-theology. Given the recent rise in kingdom-studies, this will not be new stuff. He anticipated what GE Ladd and Geerhardus Vos expounded: "already-not yet," etc. (His protégé, Russell Moore, has written a competent work on this subject: *The Kingdom of Christ*). Henry defines biblical history as a continuity, not a parentheses, thus ruling out dispensationalism. Henry is quick to deny identifying the kingdom of God with any type of political government.

What Should we Now do?
Henry's work is as relevant as ever. The past 30 years have seen an Evangelical Renaissance. Evangelicals have finally mobilized to social action (if not always perfectly), but many questions remain unanswered (e.g., what would a Christian society look like? What laws would it pass? How would one justify those laws?). Against the confusion of this age, Henry recommends a Christian metaphysics grounded on biblical revelation, from which we derive a Christian normative ethic that is universal on all cultures (39). It is imperative for evangelicals to take Henry's challenge and address the evils of society. Our brightest young people have a renewed intellectual passion. If they see evangelicalism as a "personal religion" that does not speak to the needs of all of life, then they will find a worldview with similar totalitarian claims, such as socialism, Marxism, or Islam. Against the gods of this age, Henry gives us a vision grounded in the God of the ages.

[Philip · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though originally published in 1947, Carl F.H. Henry's call to evangelical action, cultural engagement, and speaking up publicly against social evils globally is remarkably relevant today. Some material is slightly dated (e.g. references to stopping the "liquor traffic" and discussion of the cultural context of WWII and "sharing the atom-bomb secret"), however the astute reader can easily find contemporary applications and value his appreciation for the broad sweep of the gospel in all areas of life.

While the book's brevity is refreshing (89 pages), by definition such a short work will leave open questions for further analysis. For example, is Henry directing his appeals to individual Christians, churches/clergy, denominational deliberative bodies, or all of the above? Should the exhortation to cooperate with "non-redemptive" focused groups in humanitarian aid only alongside a public statement of the need for redemptive/gospel outreach (chpts. 7-8) differ depending on whether it is an individual Christian or a church doing the cooperating? What does "seeking the Kingdom" (pg. 84-85) look like, in precise terms, within the context of political, economic, or social unrest? However, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism should be considered a classic because Henry presents a biblical argument and a call to action that leaves room for further dialogue of the copious future applications in various contexts.

Thankfully, evangelicalism (Henry uses this term interchangeably with fundamentalism, a word with very different connotations now than in the 1940s-1950s), seems to be much more aware of the need for social justice and activism and more involved in those areas since this book was published, generally speaking. However, there is still a vital place for the urgent, earnest reminder found in this book regarding the great need for Christians to participate in these areas, a reminder perhaps most particularly needed in rural, smaller, older, or far-right settings and churches.

[Jake Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and very thought-provoking. Henry’s critiques of American Fundamentalism (Evangelicalism) were helpful and accurate. There were times where I felt I needed more background knowledge of the times and the Fundamentalist movement to understand his critiques, and thus I would not recommend this without first having a foundational knowledge of the Fundamentalist movement.

I really enjoyed his argument about eschatology and the shift from Post-millennialism to Pre/All-Millennialism after the World Wars.

[Zachary T. · Rating 3 out of 5]

My grandpa (Northern Baptist Seminary Grad) lent me a first edition of this book, to my glee.

The good: He clearly is pushing the right buttons for evangelical/fundamentalists in the post-war era. He speaks mostly to republican (pre-platform shift) minded Christians, not as much to fundamentalists themselves. He engages well with secular and mainline sources, and gives very good critiques of both. He consistently focuses on the need for individual regeneration through the Gospel of Christ as the only real, lasting solution to social evils. He also focuses on the need for fundamentalists/evangelicals to focus on the essentials instead of focusing too heavily on secondary issues. He cashes it out with issues such as alcohol, labor/union/labor disputes, and even racial reconciliation. Working as evangelicals within pluralistic settings politically is essential. His idea of protest is also really interesting to me.

The not-so-good: my beef with him is that he’s too pragmatic and power-politics focused. That works in a setting where there is still broad agreement on ethics, but today I think it’s untenable. He makes too many concessions and leaves too many guardrails unchecked. Particularly, I was frustrated by his seemingly anecdotal insistence that evangelicals in power pushing Christian ethical distinctive will result in better ground for the Gospel. He uses the language of force here (72). I don’t see any ground for that. I think it also makes too much room for the “lesser-of-two-evils” argument, where concessions can be made in the name of making it easier to share the Gospel. In one regard, I think we’ve seen this simply doesn’t work, and two, I think it results in a power politics leading the way down the path away from individual redemption. Against his insistence, I actually think it’s rather easy to divorce Christian ethics from actual Christian metaphysical redemption. I think Henry would have to make much different arguments for today’s so-called neo-fundamentalists.

[Ryan Linkous · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book 2018, seventy-one years after its publication in 1947, one can only imagine that had evangelicals tried to follow the suggestions of Henry that things would be at least a little better. Written at the time when neo-evangelicalism was about to explode like a fireworks during Billy Graham's LA crusade, this work reminds evangelicals/Fundamentalists that although doctrine is important and regeneration is essential to our message, the Bible never imagines a "most embarrassing divorce" between doctrine and ethics.

He proposes engagement in every sphere of society, and one must think he is primarily thinking of geo-politics, social welfare, and the media. He doesn't favor an "all-or-nothing" approach of evangelicals on certain issues. This "my way or the highway" mentality simply shows evangelicals do not care and thus cannot speak into issues. Reading this work requires and understanding of liberalism and humanism. Whereas Henry disagrees with each of these and believes they are anti-Christian, he states that Christians must work with those who hold these ideologies.

One issue that seems to be glaring with evangelicalism that Henry is aware of is that there is no unified voice who can speak for them. Unlike Catholicism, there is no pope or official hierarchy who can direct how and where large swathes of Christians engage socially.

[Cory Adams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book addresses issues from roughly 75 years ago while also addressing in a sadly prophetic sense the issues of the day. The idea that Christians shouldn’t care about social concerns because of a seeming retreat from the world seems to of started around the time of this book. That is what the author addresses. I wanted to give it a 4 because it’s a dated book that still accomplishes it’s goal today. I once had a professor that said if Christian’s weren’t the first to the table on an issue they flip the table. This book made me think of that comment a lot.

[Lance Crandall · Rating 4 out of 5]

The claims being made against fundamentalism are as relevant today as they were 70+ years ago.
Henry details a necessity of gospel proclamation combined with social concerns.. with an emphasis on God’s redemptive work.

[Warner Litrenta · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timeless analysis of the difficulty the church faces in ameliorating social evils while maintaining redemption as their only true cure. In only 89 pages, this book achieves many applicable recommendations and encouragements for evangelicals.

[Daniel Hostetter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Timeless critique of modern fundamentalism.

[Tyler Burton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Prescient and applicable, even nearly a century later

[Aaron Carpenter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can't believe this book was written in 1947! It's message is so relevant almost 70 years later. Of course, some of the definitions have changed during that time. For instance, Henry considered himself a Fundamentalist and applied the term to all evangelicals. However, today's Fundamentalists would place themselves far to the right of Henry. Ironically, by doing this, many of them continue to occupy his audience's seats and need his message today just as badly they did in the years following WW2.

But his message is precisely why they would separate from him. Here is a passion for a Gospel-centered opposition to evil in all of its social manifestations; here is a passion for entering the public square, demonstrating how Christ's Gospel is the only real hope for the world's problems, and bearing witness of Jesus for the sake of winning souls. Why would any Christian disagree? Because he encourages Christians to enter the arena alongside non-evangelicals if necessary, and the very identity of today's Fundamentalist precludes this. Henry would argue that it also precludes their witness from having any relevance to the majority of their unbelieving neighbors.

Dispensationalist Premillennialists also need not apply, as pre-trib rapture theology seems to imply what Henry calls a "foredoomed failure" that removes much of the practical motivation for working towards Kingdom realization in the present. It is the Kingdom, and the variety of theological positions surrounding it, that really determines the level of social engagement an evangelical will pursue. Those who hold an entirely futuristic view of the Kingdom, denying any present realization of it (e.g. classical dispensationalism), will balk at Henry's exhortations, while those who hold an "already / not yet" view can remain firmly Premillennial while deriving from their theology solid support for assaulting the wickedness in high places in the here and now.

Ultimately, Henry shows that while the Bible consistently links redemptive theology with ethical implications, evangelicals - who hold the Gospel most firmly - have inexplicably failed to show the world why the Gospel matters. This is a message worth hearing, and though the last 70 years have revealed many sincere experiments, some more successful than others, many Christians continue to isolate themselves from their surrounding culture with a promise of personal, spiritual salvation while ignoring the transformative impact upon the world their Gospel should be having.

Sadly, I have to give this book three stars because this extremely important message is obscured by stilted, academic, at times unreadable prose. I had to reread many paragraphs and trace unnecessarily cumbersome sentence structures to understand the author's meaning. If this were not one of the seminal works of the evangelical movement of the second half of the 20th century (i.e. "important"), I would have dropped it.

Then there's the historical perspective. This book was an impetus for the neo-evangelicals of the late 20th century, and theirs was not an unqualified success. Zeal led to compromise which led, in some cases, to an abandonment of the Gospel that was suppose to be driving the movement. This was not a consequence of Henry's thesis but an unfortunate byproduct of careless application. However, the record may keep some of today's Fundamentalists from reading a book that deserves a hearing even now. And that would be unfortunate.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 3 out of 5]

In some ways, this book is highly relevant; in other ways, it is significantly dated. For example, Henry argues that "non-evangelical humanistic movements are heading up the agitation for a new and better world" (p. 75). At the time, it seems that Henry was referring to issues like "the war against aggressive conflict, political naturalism, racial intolerance, the liquor traffic, labor-management inequities, and every wrong" (p. 78). Henry's argues that Evangelicals should be "in the forefront of reformative attack" in these areas. In several of these areas, though, liberalism has worked to address the issues, but their solutions are inadequate.

Henry is correct that "it is the redemptive element that distinguishes Christianity, and it is the redemptive element that the jaded world culture so sorely needs" (p. 73).

However, Henry argues that Christians "must unite with non-evangelicals for social betterment if it is to be achieved at all" (p. 80). Why is this the case? This is certainly not an argument from Scripture. Henry also makes other groundless assertions to exalt the primacy of cooperation for social betterment: For example, "If historic Christianity is again to compete as a vital world ideology, evangelicalism must project a solution for the most pressing world problems" (p. 65). This does not seem to be the emphasis of the NT. Also, "The force of the redemptive message will not break with apostolic power upon the modern scene unless the American Council of Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals meet at some modern Antioch, and Peter and Paul are face to face in a spirit of mutual love and compassion" (p. 82). Really? The redemptive message can break out in American only if the ACC and the NAE can get present a united front?

I agree in general terms with his premise that Fundamentalism became too detached from social issues. While Henry is careful to continually argue for social engagement in a redemptive context, I find that some of his proposals are inadequate and that he overemphasizes the primacy of social involvement.

[Cody Cunningham · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this book several years ago in college. I remembered finding a few valuable insights, but being largely unimpressed. Having just finished the second reading, I realize that I missed the brilliance and clarity of Henry's overall vision for evangelicalism's cultural engagement. Even though it was originally published in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience addresses issues that are still relevant to modern Christians.

While I'm not sure I agree with every single point of Henry's view, this book is certainly valuable, an essential read for anyone wrestling with the Church's relationship with the broader society.

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had some initial quibbles in how Henry set the stage and framed his approach in the beginning, but all in all, this book is a gem. The vision Henry casts for how evangelicalism should engage in the world is beautiful and robustly gospel-drenched. Simultaneously guarding against indifference toward social evils on the one hand, and capitulation to secular, Christless solutions on the other, Henry argues for a consistent Christianity, one that offers a uniquely Christian perspective on everything.

[Landon Coleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always found Henry hard to follow in print, and this book is certainly dated (written in 1947). Nevertheless, Henry's questions and suggestions are timely in 2021 as Christians wrestle with questions relating to modernism, liberalism, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and all the other isms. Helpful critique and prodding for those trying to hold the gospel line while also unleashing gospel power on the world.

[Galen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the discussion of evangelicalism and the broader world. This book, though written in the 40s, is just as timely today.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting work on evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Henry write this in 1947, but many of the topics and issues he discusses are still relevant today.

[Giovanni Generoso · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liberalism vs. Fundamentalism. The battle never ends. The pressing question is, How should Evangelicals think through this tension, practically? In this classic work, Carl F. H. Henry gives his synopsis of the problem, and provides what he thinks to be the greatest way of approach to reestablishing the Christian ideals in a fallen world. Henry says some very profound things.

The thesis of Carl F. H. Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism is simple yet profound. Henry argues that the Church has a message for the world. It is a message that speaks into all facets of the world’s troubles, at all times, in all places. Christianity holds the key that can redeem the world, the individuals within it, the cultures that inhabit it, and the many evils—both individual and social—that are performed on it. Men such as the late J. Gresham Machen, a spokesman for Fundamentalism, passionately insisted that Christianity has a message that is relevant to any world crisis, no matter how staggering the issues. It is this contention that Henry adamantly agrees with. Furthermore, it is this Gospel, and this Gospel alone, with all of its implications for culture, injustice, war, slavery, racism, politics, and the like, that has the necessary power to actually impact people on a world-wide scale; but only when it is applied and implemented correctly by the hands and feet of Jesus Christ—the Church—is such influence possible.

But in Henry’s day evangelical Fundamentalism was experiencing a severe crisis, one that has many ties with the modern-day concerns that still exist today. He argues that during the past few generations of world moral decay, evangelical Fundamentalism as a whole has become increasingly less vocal about combating the many social evils that plague this planet. In fact, it has become extremely rare to find a conservative preacher who has occupied much, if any time, to alleviating world ills. As a result of this slothfulness, the evangelical Church has totally separated herself from society, and in effect, truncated the spreading of the powerful message of the Gospel and its implications for society thereof.

Such self-seclusion on the part of Fundamentalists has come about due to an effort to avoid being associated with both the modernist liberals, as well as non-evangelical social reform movements. Both of these groups, Henry argues, are lacking in some area of doctrine or methodological approach. However, the Fundamentalist Christian Gospel succeeds where these systems of approach fail. However, as is argued extensively throughout the pages of this work, evangelicals are so absent that modernists and non-evangelicals alike are beginning to accuse them of having lost their devotion to human well-being! This is an astonishing indictment indeed. But the issue becomes even more serious when one begins to ask if it is even possible to have a wholesome personal ethic while remaining incessantly indifferent to the problems of social injustice. The obvious answer is that it is not possible. Something must change, Henry says. And he gives an outline for what mode of attack the Fundamentalists must take.

If evangelicalism is to have an impact, it must project a solution for the most pressing and difficult world problems. Henry argues that “It must offer a formula for a new world mind with spiritual ends, involving evangelical affirmations in political, economic, sociological, and educational realms, local and international. The redemptive message has implications for all of life; a truncated life results from a truncated message.” Though this plan of attack hopes to establish a strong voice for Christian ideology, Fundamentalists need not expect world domination in order to be passionate about such a feat. Regardless of one’s doctrinal stance on the eschatological return of Christ, all Christians can and ought to be praying along with Jesus, “Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

The answer lies in first acknowledging the weaknesses of frameworks that present a “non-redemptive” solution; in other words, we must jettison frameworks that seek find a solution to world issues while ignoring the depravity of man and the absolute necessity of spiritual regeneration in the hearts of individual persons. About these systems of thought, Henry argues, “These have been tried and found wanting; let evangelicalism now speak the redemptive mind.” Furthermore, “No political or economic system has utopian promise if the essential redemptive ingredient is missing from it.” Realizing the failures of other methodologies enhances the fact that without Christ, all is meaningless.

The guidelines for this evangelical plan of attack are as follows: 1) Reawaken to the relevance of our redemptive message to the global predicament. 2) Stress the great evangelical agreements in a common world front (against social evils of all kinds). 3) And lastly, discard elements of our message that cut the nerve of world compassion as contradictory to the inherent genius of Christianity. Henry says, “The problem of Fundamentalism then is basically not one of finding a valid message, but rather of giving the redemptive word a proper temporal focus. Christianity still affords the supreme dynamic, the supreme world-view, the supreme hope; wherever men tend to rest with a lesser dynamic, with a sub-Christian philosophy and with a lesser hope, it is and always will be pertinent.”

Christianity must influence all areas of culture. Educationally, Evangelicalism must develop competent literature in every field of study, from grade school through the university, which articulately presents each subject and its implications for both the Christian and non-Christian worldviews. Evangelicalism must contend for a fair hearing in secular education. Christian schools which aim to produce students of the highest academic standards must be founded. Politically, Fundamentalists cannot withdrawal from tomorrow’s governmental scene. A Christian can believe in the separation between Church and State without sacrificing world statesmanship to men of godless conviction. God has given men a voice; it would be poor stewardship to spoil such a gift. Furthermore, evangelicals must begin attacking vehemently the social evils committed on this earth. All people must see the passion and love with which we fight injustice. The Church must become a beacon of hope. Of most importance is that “always evangelicalism proclaims that the true center of a living community is God, known in His redemptive work through Jesus Christ” (72). In summation, “The Christian life must be lived out among the regenerate, in every area of activity, until the unregenerate are moved by Christian standards, acknowledging their force…To the extent that any society is leavened with Christian convicting, it becomes a more hospitable environment for Christian expansion.”

There are numerous agreements that I have with Henry’s thesis, but there are also a few reservations. I shall begin with what I have in common with his overall thought process. Just as Henry argued extensively, I too believe that any methodology that omits the necessity of God’s supernatural work is a futile approach. Men are sinful. History demonstrates this fact over and over again. And any system of thought, be it secular humanism, or any other, that denies such a certainty will not stand the weight of scrutiny. I also appreciated the systematic logic of Henry’s argument. He represents each methodology in a broad cumulative scope, making it easy to see the many implications of each of them. Thus, one can see the many inconsistencies and strengths of these worldviews. As a result, one can see how and why non-Christian methodologies fail, and more importantly, why the Christian Gospel is the only true and lasting solution to all world crises.

I also agreed with the subsequent modes of attack that he proposed. In regards to education, I think that there need to be more brilliant Christians who produce works in each field of education. Christians should be known for our passion and love for learning—after all, we believe in a God who created all that exists. It is my opinion that our passion for learning should only be an outgrowth of our eagerness to learn more about our God through the world that He created. Also, in regards to politics, I wholeheartedly agree that Christians ought to have a voice in the public sphere. As Henry correctly said, Christians can still believe in the separation between Church and State without handing over all governmental authority to godless leaders. Christians ought to take part in political disputes, but never in such a way that causes division between the body of Christ, nor in a way that fails to respect non-Christians. Politics is not about winning arguments. For the Christian, at least, it is to be an avenue through which we seek to implement Christian values into the societal structure to the greatest extent possible.

Apart from the many agreements I had with Henry’s thesis, there is really only one concerning issue I took with it. I do not suppose that I have a problem with what he said, but rather what I believe he failed to say. I think that Henry did not spend enough time speaking about the local Church. Though he did touch on the topic of “in-house” Reformation, I don’t think he spent enough time explaining the importance of the local Church in this very large project. In my generation, more and more Christians are deeming the church as optional. Too many have adopted a unreceptive mentality when it comes to the House of God. Maybe this wasn’t as big of an issue in Henry’s day, but it surely is a massive problem in this day and age. Thus, it must be thoroughly addressed.

No Christian should attempt to develop a theology without an extremely high emphasis upon the Church. Because, frankly, evangelical reformation cannot take place apart from Christ’s body. It is of His church that Jesus said, “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The Church is to be the hands and feet of Christ, loving the broken, caring for the poor and widows, celebrating our Savior, sacrificing for the least of these, living in purity, influencing the world’s values, boldly proclaiming the Gospel message of hope, and worshipping our God. In this scenario, God is the player, and the Church is His chosen instrument. And unless we, as the Church, are living in consistency with His will, we will miss out on being a part of His redemption plan. Since Henry made clear in his introduction that this book is written primarily to believers, I wish that he would have spent more time exploring the Church’s role in his full-fledged plan.

But also, as Henry so clearly communicated over the course of this book, it is my hope and prayer that Christians be joyful, celebratory people. We are to be people of hope and love, who sacrifice for others. How amazing would it be if non-believers looked at the joy that vibrated from Christians, and became jealous for what we have? On an individual level, all Christ-followers ought to be imitating Christ (Ephesians 5:1). We ought to be reading through the Gospels, studying fervently the life of Jesus Christ, reading the Scriptures, praying for the Spirit’s strength, all for the glory of the Father. Revival must begin in the hearts of God’s people before it penetrates the countries of this massive world. Might God’s power work mightily in each of His children! This is a vision that gripped Carl F. H. Henry. And I deeply admire and ardently affirm him in such a vision.

[Jeremy Canipe]

This book is a classic of neo-evangelical thought on the early post-WW2 period written by one the movement's most important thinkers. While I have only read this book for the first time in the last week, I am sure to be revisiting it in the future as I continue to think through its implications.

Henry was a founder of the Evangelical Theological Society, the founding dean and professor of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California before leaving to help found Christianity Today, the flagship of neo-evangelicalism and an attempt to meet the challenge of the liberal Christian Century, which reflected the rejection of Biblical fidelity and virtually non-Christian theological stances of America's mainline Protestant denominations.

This book, written in 1947, takes on a rather different challenge. Henry recognized that, in the wake of the social disengagement of Christian Fundamentalists, perhaps seen to emerge after the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920s, there was a need for a new Christian movement that took seriously the Bible and God but also could engage in the public sphere the major social and ethical issues of that era.

From other books I have read, such as Summer for the Gods, the European Reformations, Churchmen and Philosophers, Skepticism and American Faith, and Without God, Without Creed, I have some feel for this process. Basically, as modern science sought to displace divine inspiration as the best mode of knowledge in the United States and the western world, first many of the intellectuals and in the 19th century, many educated and/or middle class Americans turned away from orthodox, historical Christianity, capped off at least in part by the eventual teaching of Darwin over Genesis in the public schools of the United States.

While Fundamentalists build their own schools and publishing houses, especially for newsletter, rather than books, Henry realized that the challenges of post-WW2 needed to have an answer that was based in faith in the Bible and the gospel, as the only ultimate answer, but also tried to influence and reach a world that was largely ignoring the Christian voice, save the undifferentiated follow-along of Protestant liberalism.

Whether Henry's argument was correct is hard to say. Certainly, it has not be truly fulfilled. Just look at the divisions in the 2020 Presidential race. Yet, there is much to learn from and apply for intellectually-serious, deeply committed evangelicals like myself and others who want to both spread the gospel and bring the truth of the gospel to bear on all of my nation and my world's social evils that only go on, in the most fundamental regard, as examples of individual and society-wide sins against God, His image bearers in our fellow human beings, and His creation of which we were made stewards.

[Mark Warnock · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that needs renewed attention today. Henry laments that post-war conservative Christians who had the intellectual resources to make a serious and unique contribution to the improvement of the conditions in the world, esp. by the application of their ethical and moral vision, simply failed to see and lean into the implications of their faith. Their concept of the kingdom and its presence and power were entirely postponed to the eschaton, which rendered them supine in addressing current moral evils.

As I read, I couldn't help but think of today's crisis in conservative evangelicalism, in which hyper-partisan political loyalties are crushing basic Christian ethics under a tidal wave of anger and distrust. Once more, the ethical implications of our faith are being ignored, walled off, or subjugated to a non-Christian, or even anti-Christian political vision.

I legitimately don't understand it.

Is it possible that Jesus might have something to say to us about our treatment of other human beings that contradicts the political messaging du jour? And is it possible that The Lord of Heaven and Earth might have a greater claim to authority than our leading candidates? And a higher claim to Christian fealty than a political party?

Choose you this day whom you will serve.

Like Henry, I think the Kingdom that Christ has invited me into has a LOT to say about ethics, including political ethics, and that Jesus has a higher claim on me and on my church than any rival that might present itself.

[Etienne OMNES · Rating 4 out of 5]

La mauvaise conscience du fondamentalisme moderne est un manifeste écrit par Carl F.H. Henry en 1947, afin d'appeler ses frères évangéliques à sortir du ghetto fondamentaliste et interagir de nouveau avec les questions sociales et culturelles.

En moins de 100 pages, il se lamente des différentes tares qu'a acquis le mouvement fondamentaliste dans les années 1940: comment il en est venu à vouloir combattre le mal sans jamais s'engager contre lui, comment il s'est auto-disqualifié en refusant d'avoir une doctrine culturelle et sociale, comment il en est venu à divorcer la théorie de l'évangile de sa mise en pratique dans la société.
Mais Henry est aussi optimiste sur les ressources disponibles dans le monde évangélique de son époque pour changer ça, et il défend la pertinence toujours actuelle de l'Evangile comme base pour une doctrine sociale et culturelle, et pour un engagement intellectuel massif.

Ce livre est surtout important en tant que document historique: il est le fondateur d'une petite réforme dans le monde évangélique dont je suis redevable. S'il y a aujourd'hui des intellectuels évangéliques c'est à cause de ce livre. Mais son importance n'est pas qu'historique: les critiques fraternelles qu'il donne du fondamentalisme ont gardé une part de justesse malgré le passage du temps, et son appel à engager la culture est toujours encourageant 70 ans après.

Pour ce qui concerne le style et la facilité de lecture, il est plutôt bien écrit, mais Carl F.H. Henry a un vocabulaire de haut niveau: tant mieux en un sens, mais ce fut une difficulté.