The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Evangelicalism
Nearly 75 years ago, Carl F.H. Henry published The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, a book which addressed the ways in which fundamentalists had withdrawn from social engagement. In their desire to avoid the pitfalls of the social gospel and liberal Christianity, those who believed the right doctrines had abandoned the right practices. In a few dozen power-packed pages, Henry addressed this failure, and in so doing helped sparked the wildfire that became known as contemporary evangelicalism.
Here we stand three-fourths of a century after Henry’s seminal volume, with our conscience yet again uneasy. A new form of fundamentalism has emerged in the evangelical church. Modern evangelicalism‘s conscience has been seared, divided, discouraged, and confused by differing responses to cries for justice especially in the context of the lingering racial tensions that have plagued American life for four centuries. A vocal group of evangelicals have increasingly hardened their views on such things, moving so quickly and sharply to the right, that they have embraced a new mode of narrow fundamentalism. They have retreated from the historic ethos of evangelical life, which is a robust orthodoxy married to an engaged orthopraxy. It is this vision of faithful beliefs married to faithful social action that has carried the evangelical movement for multiple generations. This vision is now under threat by a new fundamentalism under the guise of opposing wokeness, critical race theory, and social justice.
In this description I’m trying to define this new “fundamentalist/ism” in a technical way. I don’t mean it as a pejorative label, but a particular set of theological positions and methodological presuppositions. I also acknowledge the “Left” functions in a fundamentalist way, and that new leftward fundamentalism needs to be addressed. But here I will address the new fundamentalism much closer to my own evangelical home, the new fundamentalism on the “Right.” First, the new fundamentalism holds secondary and tertiary doctrines as tightly as core Christian convictions, seeing them as a dividing line of orthodoxy. Second, the new fundamentalism embraces a narrow view of the authority of Scripture, wrongly assuming that one can interpret Scripture as a blank slate and without any existing theological convictions. Third, the new fundamentalism aligns itself ideologically with “conservative” forms of Republican politics, even conflating Republican positions with theological conservatism. So much of the new fundamentalism aligns with classical evangelical convictions, and in some ways we could almost define it as a fundamentalist mood rather than a fundamentalist movement. That said, theological convictions do diverge. Here I want to describe these three ways in which this new fundamentalism manifests itself, and I want to beg the evangelical church to be gladly and unapologetically evangelical rather than embracing the hardened tendencies of this nascent movement.
1. The New Fundamentalism Holds Second- and Third-Tier Issues Tightly
The new fundamentalism is hard edged about second- and third-tier doctrines. Perhaps the most telling example is the debate about female pastors and preachers. To hear some speak, egalitarian theology is an issue of theological orthodoxy and any compromise of complementarian theology renders one an unconservative, leftist theological squish. As a glad complementarian, I find this hardened stance untenable. This new fundamentalist impulse is rockhard on the outside but mushy in the middle. This mindset presents itself as strong, confident, and powerful, but when you get to the center you find those who are overly sensitive, unable to withstand critique or any critical engagement. This is exactly backwards. Instead, the Christian body and body of truth the church confesses should be like a body. A body is generally softer on the outside, and firm once you get to the spine. A spine gives shape to otherwise blobby masses of mush, but a spine also flexes enough to move as necessary. Evangelicals should have a backbone, strong and firm, yet with built-in flexibility and a missional range of motion. The new fundamentalism, however, has a steel rod in its skeleton, rigid and inflexible. This rigidity is a problem theologically, and it is also a problem missionally. It alienates the new fundamentalists from their fellow Christians and from those in the world Jesus is calling to himself. Instead of this new fundamentalism, evangelicals should remain evangelical. We should keep first things first, refusing to compromise their convictions while allowing for a range of motion on second- and third-tier issues.
2. The New Fundamentalism Gets Sola Scriptura Wrong
The new fundamentalism misunderstands and misappropriates the cherished Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. In its place, the fundamentalist impulse embraces what eminent theologians have called solo (Kevin Vanhoozer) or nuda (Albert Mohler) Scriptura. Here I mean this fundamentalism embraces a narrow biblicism that generally ignores other sources of knowledge, treating them as threats — including the historic teaching of the church! This biblicism masquerades as classical evangelical theology, which argues that the historic doctrine of sola Scriptura means that Scripture is a clear, self-sufficient, and self-interpreting canon. This yields a principle of supreme authority and “the practice of using Scripture to interpret Scripture” (Kevin Vanhoozer). Just this authority allows evangelical theology to avoid the error that other sources of knowledge are in any way comparable to the authority of scripture or the inerrancy of Scripture. Truly Protestant, evangelical theology always subjects knowledge to the authority of Scripture as the only infallible, inerrant guide. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, argues that it merely interprets the Bible at face value and without bias. This is misguided at best and dishonest at worst. Nobody approaches Scripture without preconceptions, presuppositions, and beliefs already in place. An evangelical method of theology acknowledges its presuppositions, something fundamentalism refuses to do. Such an admission would betray the fact that some fundamentalist conclusions are not merely based in Scripture or the “plain sense of the text,” but on one interpretation. As some have said, this fundamentalism teaches not only the inerrancy of Scripture, but the inerrancy of one narrow movement’s interpretation of the Scripture on non-primary doctrinal and ethical issues.
A prime example here is the brouhaha over Critical Race Theory (CRT). The historically evangelical mindset would take something like CRT and assess its diverse claims in light of Scripture’s truth, rejecting error and affirming truth. The new fundamentalism instead says that CRT is an entirely different worldview and religion than Christianity. CRT, it says, that must be rejected or it will completely poison anyone who dares to look at its claims with anything other than total skepticism. Evangelicals should remain evangelical, submitting to Scripture as the only perfect authority while approaching other sources of knowledge with biblical faithfulness rather than cultural fearfulness.
3. The New Fundamentalism is a Partisan Political Project
The new fundamentalism finds itself very much aligning with the Republican political agenda, pointedly so since the election of Donald Trump. In fact, the robust energy behind the mood or movement seems to have turned on the hyperdrive since 2016. A Venn diagram of the differences between these new fundamentalist theologians and preachers and Republican politics would be close to a single circle. The partisanship will aim for non-partisan nuance, “The Republicans aren’t perfect, but the Democrats are completely wrong.” Yet the vanguard of the new fundamentalism will imply or even outright assert that no Christian can vote Democratic and remain faithful to Christ. As someone who registered Independent as a teenager but who has never voted for a Democrat for any major office, I find such a statement incredulous. I find it incredulous not because I agree with Democratic politics (I really don’t). Instead, it’s incredulous because it holds the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the Christian church captive to a human political agenda, positioning the church to be a pawn in the power politics of the moment.
In contrast, evangelicalism while at times captivating itself to political agendas, has also understood that it holds and heralds a gospel that transcends any earthly political party. The primal political confession of the Christian is, “Jesus is Lord.” The evangelical conscience will render to Caesar what Caesar deserves but never render to him what only Jesus deserves. Some might push back here that such political engagement is woven into the neo-evangelical project as seen in the constant political connections of key leaders like Billy Graham. Such captivity to the political spirit of the age has indeed stained the worship and witness of the (white, American) evangelical church, making this a difficult tangle to untie. We should nevertheless aim to disentangle the church’s worship and witness from the partisanship of our political moment. Such political partisanship makes the church just another political interest group, and evangelicals should disentangle their gospel-name from connections to just another political voting bloc. Evangelicals proclaim a gospel — an evangel! — about the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God, so the elephant and the donkey must recede to the background. Evangelicals need to live up to this evangel from which they draw their name.
Conclusion
Evangelical Christians, evangelical churches, pastors, and organizations should resist the pull toward this rightward neo-fundamentalism. Evangelicals should remain gladly and solidly evangelical. Evangelicals should refuse to make secondary issues dividing lines of orthodoxy and instead aim to have a convictional spine that is strong enough to stand and flexible enough to move on mission. Evangelicals should refuse to yield to a narrow biblicism and instead aim to be biblical, confessing the historic notion of sola Scriptura with epistemic humility on secondary and tertiary issues instead of pretending that our interpretations are equivalent to that Scripture. Evangelicals should refuse to captivate ourselves to a partisan political agenda, and instead let our driving confession that Jesus is Lord move us to make disciples of the nations, Democrats included. Three-fourths of a century after Henry’s Uneasy Conscience, the modern conscience of evangelicalism is indeed and again uneasy. We should choose to reject the new fundamentalism and remain gladly and clearly evangelical instead.
