Budziszewski on Carl FH Henry, Evangelical Politics and The Uneasy Conscience

Coffee and a book...

The influence of Carl FH Henry on contemporary evangelicalism is undisputed.  He was a founder and first editor of Christianity Today, and one of the first faculty members of Fuller Theological Seminary,   He authored more than 30 books, and is, in the words of Budziszewski,“if not the father of the new evangelical movement – for it had no single originator – at least one of its uncles.”  [40] 

In 1947 Henry published “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism”, a book which is his “most influential contribution to evangelical political reflection”.  [40]  Budziszewski devotes the first part of Evangelicals in the Public Square to critiquing both the book and its legacy.  What Henry saw in his own day was a movement away from the Fundamentalists to the “new evangelicals”, and with it Henry framed his lament over a misguided and hopeless modernity, and a challenge that Fundamentalists had ignored the social imperatives of the redemptive Gospel.

Henry argued broadly that redemption (like sin) is not only individual, but is also social [Henry, Conscience, 32, 37, 51-52].  He sought to correct the pendulum swing of the Fundamentalists, who in their reaction to a social gospel movement which seemed to downplay the divinity of Christ, had “seemed to revolt against the social imperative of the gospel itself” [41].  The underlying doctrine to drive this was the Incarnation, which has implications for wider social involvement and responsibility. Budziszewski summarizes Henry’s implications of the Incarnation for a redemptive social evangelicalism: “[Christians] should withdraw only from movements whose means or goals are explicitly anti-evangelical” [42].  What this means is that Henry was calling evangelicals and Fundamentalists to a wider engagement with the range of institutions – social, political, educational, economic. 

As Budziszewski points out, Henry’s strategy for engaging these institutions is not a developed Christian theory of education, politics, sociology or economics.  Rather, it is by populating these institutions with Christian individuals that the institutions will be transformed and redeemed. Here, I think, is the first question to be leveled in relation to contemporary “evangelical politics”:  Is it only through populating the institution with individual Christians that the institutions can be “redemptive”?  On one level, we see this played out in the elect-ability of candidates whose personal faith is agreeable to a set standard.  Fill the parliament, or congress, with individual Christians, and the rest will look after itself.  But is this the case?  Arguing from natural law, Bud holds that such an approach is short – it fails to call us to the task of thinking through a Christian economic and social philosophy, a Christian jurisprudence, a Christian philosophy of state and governance.  Christians need to have a notion of how the institutions can function redemptively.  For example, can we understand and enact just laws even if we do not have “Christians” in government? And conversely, will electing "Christians" lead to more just public institutions?

Another point to be considered in the (non) development of evangelical political philosophy is eschatology.   Budziszewski looks at three streams of eschatology in evangelical circles – streams which are still with us today.  Think of the “Left Behind” series which has populated Christian bookstore shelves and fattened publishers’ bank accounts.  Henry lamented the state of division and the amount of energy devoted to eschatology in his day, and Budziszewski looks at the legacy of these streams [44ff].  There is a large section of evangelical political thought which does not seek to transform the surrounding culture, but merely is content to be protected from it.  It is an escapist ideology which becomes merely defensive.  With shades of Kuyper, such evangelicals are happy as long as their own spheres are protected:  “we don’t think we will change the direction of public education, but don’t try to force that stuff on MY children.”  Budziszewski astutely observes that the “rise in fundamentalist political activity therefore reflects not a shift from a protective goal to a redemptive goal, but an increase in the perceived level of threat.” [46ff]

What Henry called evangelicals to do was engage the wider culture with the redemptive Gospel.  But what he failed to do was articulate a way in which evangelical Christians can think about those institutions apart from simply populating them with Christian individuals.  As Budziszewski points out, “Surely it would be naïve to think that better laws eliminate the need for God’s grace.  But it is equally unrealistic to suppose that conversion cancels out the need for better laws.” [47]

This whole area is a fascinating one.  One of the biggest charges brought against Henry and other evangelicals is that they failed to provide a “cultural apologetic”.  That is, they failed to explore if there is any basis on which to engage and cooperate with non-Christians in the pursuit of the public good.  This is a question which will have different answers from different quarters.  Is there any commerce between the City of God and the city of man?  Can there be a common notion of public “justice” among Christians and non-Christians?  Budziszewski argues that a great failing of evangelicalism is the absence of natural law as a bridge to a non-Christian culture.  This is the flip side of the Incarnation – all humans are made in the image of God, and as such, there are points of contact between all.  In their zeal for special revelation, they have neglected the tools of general revelation.

An interesting read so far.  Think I’ll have to pull out the Meno again…

related post:  J. Budziszewski: Evangelicals in the Public Square

Comments

[Tim]

I thought for a minute that you were going to pull out the Menno!

Seriously - a very interesting article. I had the pleasure of hearing Carl Henry preach at Knox Presbyterian Church, Toronto in the summer of 1977. He was a superb theologian and a fine communicator. I find it hard to believe that he just forgot to articulate a Christian theology of what incarnational social action would look like within the institutions. Perhaps he realised that talk of 'a Christian philosophy of state and governance' is a bit of a misnomer, given that the 'Chriistian' bit of the Bible never envisions that Christians will be in that position in the first place!

Historic Anabaptist theology calls on Christians to be an alternative kingdom and live out their social justice convictions in that context. The danger is a separatism that has no impact on the world except by being a lifeboat. Historic Anglicanism acted as a chaplain to Caesar in the hope that having his ear from time to time might be a useful thing to moderate some of his excesses. I'm not convinced that's much better. Our friend Wilberforce had a better model, but even he was blind to how his complicity in the English class system stood in contradiction to New Testament Christianity. The discussion continues...

[joseph]

I have both the one "n" and the two "nn" on the bookshelf, although I know which one a classicist would turn to first... :^)

Tim, I think you are right to point out the pendulum of separatism and "cultural chaplaincy". I grant that the NT does not experience nor envision Christians in the institutional roles of civic power and law-making, but whether or not that is an ideal, I'm not so certain. There is a section of the book where Budziszewski engages Yoder's thought - which I'm looking forward to.

Henry critiqued his own work some 40 years later in a book entitled “Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-paganism” (Crossway, 1988). There was, he wrote, “a notable weakness in my concentration on regeneration as the guarantee of a better world. For “Uneasy Conscience” failed to focus sharply on the indispensable role of government in preserving justice in a fallen society. Essential as regenerative forces are to transform the human will, civil government remains nonetheless a necessary instrument to constrain human beings – whatever their religious predilections – to act justly, whether they desire to do so or not.” (page 167)

It seems that the national "established church" model sees the institutions as deriving authority from God, but then does not have the ability to critique those institutions when needed. How we are called to incarnate the kingdom, as much as possible, is a difficult and grace-dependant vocation...

[The Sheepcat]

Joseph, just today I happened across a good essay and a book review by J. Daryl Charles in First Things on the theme of recovery of natural law.

[cpm]

Speaking of uneasy conscience, when is your episcopal election. Any names yet?

[joseph]

Sheepcat - interesting articles. I've long had an interest in natural law theory (and all the corollaries in natural theology). It is certainly one area which evangelicals have shied away from in the past. Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Romans, talks about an over-reaction to Enlightenment thought as the root cause.
CPM - So far only your name is on the list. Could be acclamation....:^)

[The Sheepcat]

Go on, Joseph. Give CPM a run for his money!