ENCORE: The Failure of the Church and the Success of Secularism: Carl Henry on the Crisis of Evangelical Engagement
As Christians look to upcoming elections and consider vital issues facing our public square, we must not be found silent nor unintelligible in our ethical convictions. Silence and underdeveloped theses for the verity of our moral vision are both an affront to our mandate and the duties of discipleship. At a bare minimum, Christians must express our biblical convictions in the voting booth, electing candidates that will uphold justice and promote the good. Christians must also articulate our convictions on abortion, marriage, and why the entire array of the LGBTQ rainbow revolution spells disaster for any nation that hopes to achieve flourishing. We also need Christians contending for the rights of children against the onslaught of “gender medicine.” In short, evangelicals must be more political, not less.
“If the church fails to apply the central truth of Christianity to social problems correctly, someone else will do so incorrectly.”[1] The twentieth-century theologian Carl F.H. Henry (1913-2003) made that argument in 1964. Regrettably, his thesis has held true over the past sixty years. But this doesn’t have to be. The moral decadence of American politics and culture can be reversed, but only through a God-given combination of spiritual graces. Theological conviction, moral clarity, and public courage on the part of American evangelicals are what is needed, and in this essay I hope to show how Carl Henry’s public theology is a good model for engaging our secular world.
The Disconnect Between Profession and Voting Practice
Consider, for example, the November 2023 elections. The various electoral contests in that year revealed a disturbing insight into the state of American society: our cultural consciousness has been discipled by a resurgent neo-paganism. Indeed, ever since the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement has endured significant setbacks and legislative defeats; and these failures occurred in what we thought to be deeply conservative states with high church attendance. In 2023, Kentucky reelected its Democratic governor who supports little to no restrictions on abortion. The residents of Ohio, where 73% of adults claim some manner of Christian faith (and 29% are evangelicals), passed a constitutional right to abortion in 2023.
These developments were captured in Ligonier’s 2022 “State of Theology” survey, which uncovered troubling realities not only about society, but amongst those who called themselves evangelicals. On the question of whether gender identity is a matter of choice, 42% of Americans agree that it is. Amongst evangelicals, that number is only slightly better at 37%. While 91% of evangelicals believe that abortion is a sin, exit polls from Ohio’s recent vote to enshrine abortion access as a constitutional right show that at least a quarter of white evangelicals support unfettered access to abortion. There is clearly a disconnect between what evangelicals believe to be unjust and their actual vote for unjust practices.
That same Ligonier survey also revealed the following about evangelicals: 43% believe that Jesus is not God; 26% say the Bible is not literally true; and 38% contend that religious belief is mere opinion rather than about objective truth. Is it any wonder that secularism triumphs when those who apparently bear witness to the truth of God’s revealed will have strayed from their obligations as disciples of Jesus Christ and have departed from the authority of God’s Word?
There is no Middle Ground
Our minds will either be conformed to this world or transformed by the Word (Rom. 12:2). In this scheme, no neutrality exists. The absence of obedience and the lack of abiding in Christ spells disaster for the Christian. We will find ourselves imaging this world, looking less and less like Christ with minds contorted by godlessness and worldliness.
This principle extrapolates into the broader culture. The Christian worldview rejects the myth of moral and ethical neutrality in the public square. Carl Henry stood upon that conviction, declaring that every contour of society—from its customs and culture to its legal structures—would either abide in the verity of God’s created order or conform to something else. Either the central truths of the Bible and its comprehensive moral framework would guide our civil and political communities, or a neo-paganism would nourish a national collective consciousness.
Indeed, Henry believed that “the fate of the Bible is the fate of Christianity and even of civilization itself.”[2] The eviction of the Bible and a biblical worldview as the ballast for society means the abandonment of the only stable source for societal flourishing. Dislodging the binding authority of God’s eternal law and his Word coincides with the embrace of ethical relativism and moral malleability. The result of this condition, Henry warned, was “society’s inevitable theological, spiritual, and moral suicide.”[3]
Failure to relate God’s revealed will to the broader society means surrendering our neighbors, communities, states, and nation to the ravages of a humanistic paganism. True human rights and human liberty, rightly understood, will disintegrate under the corrosive acids of moral relativism. Indeed, the democratization of ethics created the conditions for suffocating the vitality of families, the life of the unborn, and the recognition and respect of ontological reality in sex and gender. The stakes could not be higher.
Carl Henry’s Clarion Call
Carl Henry dedicated much of his career to the issue of public theology. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, published in 1947, called for a renewed evangelical engagement in the public square. He cast a vision for an evangelical movement that avoided the isolationist tendencies of fundamentalism while also providing a theologically orthodox alternative to Protestant liberalism and the social gospel.
-
Surprised by “New” Disney? Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Be
Written by Rachel K. Alexander |
Monday, October 31, 2022
Given Disney’s overt willingness to undermine parental authority, it’s no wonder parents are looking for alternatives. But rather than simply look for a “conservative” version of Disney’s overstimulating escapism, it might be time for families to reconsider the Disney model altogether.As Disney World continues to celebrate its COVID-19-delayed 50th anniversary, criticism of the media and entertainment giant abounds.
In addition to lamenting its new price-gouging strategy, Disney detractors cry that it’s gone woke, removing all “gendered greetings” from parks and vowing to dramatically increase LGBTQ characters.
After the Florida Legislature earlier this year passed what the Left mischaracterized as a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which protects a parent’s right to determine when his or her children learn about sexual orientation and gender identity, Disney responded with a swift rebuke.
Determined to save younger generations from “backwards” thinking, Disney promises to combat similar parental rights legislation in other states.
Strange to hear, coming from what’s supposed to be a family company, is it not?
That’s what Disney’s critics argue, denouncing its hypocrisy and, in some cases, going so far as to lay out plans for the creation of an “alternative” Disney, one that will maintain its original innocent and wholesome vision.
But just how much has Disney actually departed from its original vision? Before turning to alternatives or replacements, it would behoove parents, critics, and media executives alike to recall, on this 51st anniversary of Disney World, what it is, what it’s for, and how it shapes the children—and adults—who visit.
The idea behind Disneyland and especially Disney World was not simply to build a theme park for kids, but to create an immersive world where visitors could escape reality and make all their dreams come true.
“I don’t want the public to see the world they live in while they’re in the park,” Walt Disney once remarked. “I want them to feel they’re in another world.”
Central to the vision of the “happiest place on earth” is the enjoyment of sensorial pleasure. Upon arriving, one’s senses are stimulated in constantly changing and exciting ways, through thrilling rides, musical parades, and wafting aromas of Dole Whip and Mickey Mouse pretzels. Cutting-edge technology keeps the pleasures novel, allowing for increasingly more realistic levels of simulation and intensity every time you return.
Disney wanted the parks to provide this experience equally to both children and adults, whom he called “kids grown up.” Disneyland would “give meaning to the pleasure of children,” as he put it, “and pleasure to the experience of adults.” The takeaway from a trip to the parks is Peter Pan clear: Never grow up.
Read More
Related Posts: -
A Billionaire and the Tech Industry are Trying to Shape LGBTQ Rights in Deeply Mormon Utah
DISCLAIMER: The Aquila Report is a news and information resource. We welcome commentary from readers; for more information visit our Letters to the Editor link. All our content, including commentary and opinion, is intended to be information for our readers and does not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Aquila Report or its governing board. In order to provide this website free of charge to our readers, Aquila Report uses a combination of donations, advertisements and affiliate marketing links to pay its operating costs.
-
Why Louisiana Was Unwise to Mandate the Ten Commandments in Classrooms
Written by Aaron M. Renn |
Monday, July 8, 2024
In reality, this law is almost entirely symbolic, and a highly provocative symbolic act at that, one that will alienate non-Christians and reinforce them in every bad thing the left has said about conservative Christians wanting a theocracy. It reinforces the idea that conservative Christians are basically unwilling to live peaceably as part of the multicultural society that, whatever one might think of it, actually exists today. This is true even for non-religious “normies” who aren’t necessarily inherently hostile to Christianity unless given some reason – such as a move like this made in a country in which only a minority of people are practicing Christians.The state of Louisiana just passed a law mandating the the Ten Commandments be put on display in public school classrooms in the state.
I believe this law is unwise, reflects a poor understanding of cultural conditions, and shows that a large number of American Christians are still living in a culture war mindset.
In my book about how America has transitioned towards a Negative World for Christians, I wrote about the need to stay prudentially engaged, and that different people are going to come to different good faith conclusions about the right actions to take. I wrote:
Prudential engagement also recognizes that not all evangelicals will come to the same conclusion about where and how to be involved politically and socially. We should be tolerant of evangelicals who make a different decision than we do in this matter. That doesn’t mean we avoid political conversations or refrain from critical evaluations of other people’s approaches. It’s perfectly valid to say, as I just did, that the counsel advo- cating political disengagement should be rejected.
But we should respect those who hold views different from our own and seek to be attuned to them when they’ve honestly made a different decision.
So in this case, I’ll say that I simply come to a different prudential judgment than the folks in Louisiana. I don’t think this is a blatantly illegitimate act. Not only would this have been very constitutional, even normal, for the vast bulk of American history, there are people my age who’ve been noting how they had the Ten Commandments in their classrooms when they were in school.
The courts may very well rule that this law unconstitutional. I choose to view the malleability of our constitution in that way as a feature not a bug. Meaning I too want to change various things that are presently viewed as “the constitution.” There’s no reason for anyone to treat current jurisprudence as settling anything, given that neither the left, nor America’s judges themselves, behave in that manner.
So I don’t think this law is per se illegitimate or outside the American tradition. I just think it’s unwise.
Why do I say that?
First, let’s consider some reasons people might put forth for why this was a good thing.It’s red meat that energizes the base, so makes good political sense in that way.
It shows a willingness by red states to defy the national cultural consensus and even the federal government – a sort of assertive federalism.
It will actively repel liberals from the state, helping to keep it red politically.
It will have some sort of substantive, evangelistic effect on the viewers or culture.I don’t personally find these compelling in this case.
Start with the fact that this is a classic “culture war” move. In fact, it’s literally a classic. Attempting to force the display of the Ten Commandments on government property is a longstanding culture war tactic. I seem to recall it even back in the 1990s, and have managed to find references to it on the internet from as early as 2002. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against this very practice when it comes to courthouses.
Read More
Related Posts:
