“One Little Hour”

I admit I was skeptical when I began reading The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism by Carl Henry, a founder of Fuller Theological Seminary and of neo-evangelicalism. Growing up at Bob Jones University imbued me with suspicion of my new-evangelical brethren and their engagement with the “world.” My worst fears appeared to be confirmed when I read Harold Ockenga’s introduction which calls for “a progressive Fundamentalism with a social message.”

But by the time I finished the book (a relatively quick read at 89 double-spaced pages, though taking far longer than the page count would indicate owing to Henry’s obtuse writing), I was convinced by parts of Henry’s thesis. Henry argued that Fundamentalism (broadly defined since he is writing in 1947 before the new-evangelical split had occured) had reacted against the modernistic social gospel of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The modernists were mostly post-millenial, believing that the Kingdom of God should be ushered in by social reform. Fundamentalists were mostly pre-millenial, thinking that the world was hopeless depraved and only redeemable by the second coming of Christ. Fundamentalists reacted against the modernist emphasis on social reform, instead see-sawing towards the opposite extreme.

This first part of Henry’s argument makes sense, except for a number of inconsistencies. Fundamentalist leaders remained very engaged in politics, both local and national (for example, see the fundamentalist reaction against Al Smith’s candidacy for President in 1928). They also advocated some relatively profound social reforms like Prohibition and vice laws.

Maybe Henry was just annoyed that Fundamentalists failed to address the issues he cared about the most, like labor disputes and war. I wonder if some of the Fundamentalist failure to engage those issues stemmed not from a reactionary theology, but because of their almost uniform political conservatism and their shared Southern roots.

Still, I agree with Henry that Fundamentalists were far more likely to preach redemption for individual spiritual needs rather than broader social ills. He posited that the message of redemption from sin applies to both the individual and to society. He backed up his argument with a discussion of Luke 3. John the Baptist calls for those truly desiring repentance to prove it by giving their extra possessions to those without, to not abuse their contracts, and to stop extorting money by violence. He then announced the coming of the only One who could enable John’s listeners to perform those good deeds.

I reject the calls of some emergent theologians who see in this passage a call for radical redistribution of wealth, but despite exegetical abuse, the text strongly argues for the importance of a social conciousness for true followers of Christ.

Henry believed that it was wrong for Fundamentalism to cede leadership of social issues to non-evangelicals, including modernists and non-theists. He believed that the message of redemption from individual sin was the heart of the gospel, but he argued that the gospel had broader social implications. I agree.

Christianity has a long history of radically challenging culture on race, gender, and class. Jesus preached an equal spiritual need both to the Jewish elite and to the common people (He did choose to be born in a carpenter’s home in the first place!). His gospel brought spiritual equality to slaves, freemen, men, and women. Post-Reformation evangelicalism continued that rich heritage with opposition to the slave trade, ministers who ignored class lines, and greater opportunities for women in the Church.

Unfortunately, Fundamentalism has a mixed record on social issues. Fundamentalists typically ended up reacting to the extreme left on social issues like women’s rights and racism rather than engaging those issues with the gospel. That doesn’t mean that Fundamentalists should have been more liberal per se, but they should not have abandoned the balanced middle ground in reaction to leftist leadership on those issues.

Henry’s original ideas appear valid. However, they were taken to an unfortunate extreme by some of his contemporaries, like Ockenga, as well as later evangelicals. The history of Fuller Theological Seminary, portrayed by George Marsden in Reforming Fundamentalism, tells part of that sad tale.

We constantly balance on a narrow tightrope between the two extremes of complete cultural disengagement and the social gospel. Thank God for His enabling grace through the Spirit that gives us the hope of a balanced walk!

PS [2/12/08] -  My brother-in-law wrote a paper in seminary reviewing Uneasy Conscience. The last couple pages are particularly interesting, when Henry analyzes the results of his ideas. If you are interested in reading it email me at paulmatzko@gmail.com and I will send it to you.