Is the evangelical conscience still uneasy?

Seventy-five years ago this year, evangelical titan Carl F.H. Henry published his call-to-arms known as “The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.” In that remarkable book, Henry called on evangelicals to reengage in politics through recovering Christianity as a “world-life view.”

Not only did evangelicals at that time lack a shared vision for moral and social engagement; they shared a long and studied history of attacking efforts to alleviate social problems. There were exceptions of course, but the charge generally stuck. Fundamentalists were experts at attacking individual sins, but unable or unwilling to address societal problems through politics.

Where had they gone wrong? Foreshadowing what George Marsden would later popularize as the ‘Great Reversal’ thesis, Henry alleged that fundamentalists had made a critical error at the beginning of the twentieth century. They were correct to oppose liberal theology, which denied the supernatural claims of Scripture and identified the kingdom of God with civilizational moral progress. But they were wrong to oppose liberal social reform efforts, as if these were equally tainted with the stain of modernism. “In protesting against non-evangelical ideologies,” Henry explained, “Fundamentalism came to react also against the social programs of the modern reformers.” This was a tragic error, and the consequences linger to this day.

In the face of evangelical inaction, Henry called on evangelicals to think of Christianity, not just as a way for individuals to get saved, but as the comprehensive truth without which our world cannot be understood.

Whether evangelicals would do so, however, depended on two steps critical to Henry’s life-mission: To reject fundamentalist separatism and then recover the link between Christian ethics and Christian theology.

Carl Henry was present at the formation of modern American evangelicalism, and was one of its most influential figures. He was no utopian, but he called for a pragmatic incrementalism in politics. He did not view doctrinal agreement as a prerequisite for all political collaboration but believed that evangelicals ought to work with larger groups—at times even cooperating with non-evangelicals—if doing so meant eradicating or alleviating social evils and moral wrongs.

Recovering a Christian “world-life view” also meant recognizing that God’s commandments are not arbitrary but conform with the grain of creation and human nature. As Henry stated it bluntly, “Christian ethics cannot be retained apart from Christian metaphysics.” Though he did not use the language of natural law, Henry clearly drew on the concept.

Historically, Hebrew-Christian thought viewed ethics and metaphysics as inextricably linked. The Christian proclamation of the gospel, Henry explained, was not indifferent to social problems but brought every evil, in the flow of Biblical history and promise, before the judgment seat of Christ. That is because Christian ethics depends on the metaphysical claim of a universal moral law rooted in the unchanging character of the sovereign God of the universe.

“It is wrong to worship false gods, to murder, to commit adultery,” Henry explained, not just because Moses said so—indeed they were “wrong before Moses, yea even before Adam”—but because “they are antagonistic to the character and will of the sovereign god of the universe.” “The universe is put together on moral lines. … The ten commandments disclose the only secure foundation for a society without the seeds of dissolution; all cultures, cut loose from these principles, have in them the vitiating leaven of decay.”

In a world awash in metaphysical revolt, Christians needed to articulate not only Christian ethics, but the Christian metaphysical reality undergirding Christian ethics.

As evangelicals today, we stand on the shoulders of giants like Carl F.H. Henry. Amid transgender madness and race-essentialism, our world remains desperately in need of recovering Christian metaphysics—articulating the unity of mankind as creatures made in the image of God, as well as the goodness of being made either male or female. Without developing and imparting this undergirding metaphysic, we can have little hope of passing on the faith to the next generation.

Evangelicals also have a long way to go in developing political partnerships across theological lines. The fundamentalist instinct rightly eschews evangelistic cooperation with non-Christians. But as evangelicals move into the ‘negative world’ as a vocal minority, political partnerships with those who share a theistic metaphysic—whether Catholics, Muslims, or Jews—will be crucial for the way forward.

Seventy-five years ago, Henry described the evangelical conscience as “uneasy.” Is it still uneasy today? Clearly, we still have much work to do.