Response to Carl F.H. Henry - Nathan O.
Hatch
It is an honor to be at this conference and a double one to have the opportunity to interact with a paper of Dr. Carl F.H. Henry. Over the last half-century, no evangelical voice has been more articulate, insightful, and wise in calling theologically conservative protestants in America to carry out their responsibilities in the modern world. His defense of theological orthodoxy, his call to responsible involvement, and his leadership in bringing together evangelicals of varying ecclesiastical persuasion all attest to his powerful vision that evangelicals engage the modern naturalistic world with the claims of historic, supernatural Christianity. Mr. Henry, all of us stand deeply in your debt for a lifetime of faithful service to the Kingdom.
In his paper to us, "Who Are the Evangelicals", Mr. Henry reiterates several themes that have characterized his writing over the years. First, he depicts the terrain of the 20th century to which the Church is called as a fundamental philosophical struggle that pits modern naturalism against biblical supernaturalism, theism versus a materialistic view of the cosmos. Secondly, Mr. Henry struggles to portray the motley array of theologically conservative Christians and churches in America as an identifiable "evangelical" movement. The question of definition which he asks, "What's in a name?" underscores Mr. Henry's long concern to challenge the rampant pluralism of evangelicals and to bind them more into a common movement, one that can defend supernatural Christianity before a secular world.
Page 96
A third theme in this paper that resonates with Mr. Henry's long-established concerns is an effort to clarify theological boundaries. What does it mean to be evangelical or to use his phrase to be "consistent evangelicals?" As he has done for the last decade, Mr. Henry takes what might be called a moderate view of inerrancy: defending its importance as a staple of evangelical identity, but critiquing those for whom the disclaimer of biblical error becomes the primary statement about Scripture. This defensive posture, he suggests, can sacrifice an awareness that two competing world views underlie conflicts over the Bible. Henry calls for proclaiming the whole counsel of God rather than remaining fixed upon certain fundamentals.
I heartily agree with each of these points, as would most people here assembled. Mr. Henry's definition of "evangelical," focusing on the work of Christ and the trustworthiness of Scripture, is straightforward and, I think, uncontroversial. But it is also frustrating in at least one respect. It is a definition that has a timeless and abstract quality. His brief biblical statement of evangelical identity could be applied to Christians anywhere in the world today or to any epoch in the history of the Church. By all means we need this kind of definition; but it also does little to orient us as evangelicals living in a specific place and time: American evangelicals facing particular problems and opportunities at the close of the 20th century. "If we knew where we were and whither we were tending," Abraham Lincoln said, "we would know better what to do and how to do it." My comments today address the structure of evangelical life today, the specific challenges that will face those who defend the name of Christ and the authority of Scripture.
Page 97
I see at least three great challenges that face American evangelicals in the coming years: 1) the reality of rampant pluralism; 2) a need to recover a higher view of the Church; and 3) a need to nurture first-order Christian scholarship. Let me briefly state why I think these are pressing challenges for American evangelicals on the eve of the 21st century.
1. The Reality of Rampant Pluralism
I am not as sanguine as Mr. Henry in speaking about the evangelical movement. In truth, there is no such thing as evangelicalism. The vitality of conservative Protestantism in America, since the very early 19th century, has been directly related to its entrepreneurial quality, its populist and decentralized structure, and its penchant for splitting, forming, and reforming. Fundamentalism, The Holiness Movement, and Pentecostalism, the most immediate heirs of most of us in this room, were generic names that easily mask the pluralism and decentralization of these movements. All were extremely diverse coalitions dominated by scores of self-appointed and independent-minded religious leaders.
The emergence of "card-carrying evangelicals" after World War II under the banner of Billy Graham, Wheaton College, Christianity Today, the NAE, organizations such as Campus Crusade and Young Life and seminaries such as Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, and Fuller led to certain deference to recognized leaders such as Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, and I might add, the two conveners of this conference, Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F.H. Henry. This has been an era characterized by evangelical congresses, conferences, caucuses, councils, and
Page 98
consultations. Yet unhappily that age is now coming to an end and the next generation simply does not have the same kind of recognized leaders. Nor will it have the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which has provided the financial and organizational glue to make much common activity possible.
I would suggest that in the coming years centrifugal forces will continue to accelerate and leadership will be parceled out by powerful figures, self-appointed, many with media orientation. No one can predict the rise to authority of a James Dobson, a Chuck Swindoll, a John MacArthur, a D. James Kennedy, or a Bill Hybels. The evangelical world is extremely dynamic, but there are few church structures to which many of its adherents or leaders are subject. The evangelical world is decentralized, competitive, and driven by those who can build large and successful organizations. It is this instability that I think is problematic for theological integrity.
2. The Need to Recover a Higher View of the Church
That leads me to the second challenge facing us: to recover a higher view of the Church as an institution. The instability and volatility that I suggest faces evangelicals is compounded by how little most evangelists value the traditions that develop in any institutional expression of the Christian Church. In a world increasingly rootless, evangelicals need to draw sustenance from the Church and its traditions. So much of evangelical life is freshly minted new congregations, new publications, new seminaries. Few of us stand in a religious tradition which provides ballast and long-term orientation.
Page 99
Never has this problem been more acute. Jonathan Edwards knew he was Reformed and a part of The Standing Order of New England; and he wrestled within that tradition to clarify and preserve evangelical distinctives. John Wesley, for all his insistence upon evangelical reform, cherished the institutional Church and worked within its structures. Too many of us evangelicals today divest ourselves of being Presbyterian or Baptist, or Disciples, or Lutheran, or Methodist. We fall into reinventing the Church every time a new vision seems workable, or anytime strong disagreement disturbs a congregation.
The decline of denominational identity is a trend affecting all Americans. It does open new opportunities for evangelicals, but it also leaves us more subject to the whim of the moment, more cut off from the riches of given traditions and less capable of expressing Christianity in its intellectual depth as powerful and profound.
3. The Need to Nurture First-order Christian Scholarship
This leads me to the third challenge: that of nurturing first-order Christian scholarship. In recent years the United States has become more secular and more religious at the same time. The crucial point to note is the contrasting sectors of society in which these trends are taking place. Religion is abounding in the realm of popular culture and in ways that concentrate on breadth of audience rather than depth of insight. In the realm of high culture — in the best universities, in the arts in literary circles — the juggernaut of secularism rolls on, pressing religious belief into territory that is smaller and of less consequence.
Page 100
For at least two reasons, evangelicals are not prepared to face this challenge to win the right to be heard by 20th century intellectuals.
1) First, the decentralized structure of the evangelical world inhibits the expensive and painstakingly-slow task of Christian thinking. There simply is no evangelical college or seminary today (amidst the scores that exist) that begins to provide faculty with the time for thought and writing provided at any good research university. We simply are not competing on an equal field.
2) The very structures of the evangelical world that have developed since World War II inhibit evangelicals from writing in ways that would be taken seriously by non-evangelicals. Evangelicals have developed their own publishing houses, their own journals, their own media outlets, their own associations. The very success of these evangelical ventures make it all too easy for evangelical scholars to write only with their own theological works in view. Instead of engaging those who hold naturalistic assumptions, we too easily spend our energies in intramural debate discussing issues which are incomprehensible to those outside the evangelical camp.
Since I am a historian, let me draw a lesson from the past. In the nineteenth century, evangelicals were every bit as committed to a vital and living faith in Christ as we are now. But they were also committed to biblical visions of social reform and intellectual discourse. Shortly after World War I, however, evangelicals by and large abandoned both social activism and their participation in the intellectual life of the nation in what has since come to be called "The Great Reversal." In the last generation evangelicals
Page 101
have heeded the prophetic words of Carl Henry's 1947 book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism and have taken significant steps forward in reclaiming that lost vision of social service. Evangelicals are committed in the strongest possible terms to translate their faith into down-to-earth service to other human beings.
This morning I want to leave you with the challenge to reclaim the lost vision of Christian intellectual life just as we have reclaimed the lost vision of Christian social service. It is once again time to broaden our vision back to our original biblical calling, to give our minds, as well as our hearts and souls, in unstinting service to Christ. I think in some ways evangelicals today are less inclined and less capable of speaking beyond our own borders than they were 40 years ago. The very success of evangelical institutions conspires to make us more rather than less insular.
For many years now the best evangelical minds have conceded scholarly inquiry to intellectuals with naturalist assumptions, but now might be an especially propitious time to turn this trend around. In some ways the larger scholarly community seems to be questioning its assumptions, and the small but vital cadre of evangelical scholars which has developed in the last forty years may be positioned to offer an alternative voice in the academic world. Should evangelicals and their institutions begin to support scholarship seriously, to proclaim God's sovereignty in the life of the mind as well as the life of the heart, evangelical scholars might be able to put together a communal effort which would begin to reclaim strategic enclaves within an intellectual terrain that remains dominantly secular.
