Paul Henry is associate professor of political science at
The discussion begins by considering some of the reasons for the general failure of evangelicals in the ethical area. His discussion in this area implicitly shows a number of ways the American cultural worldview has effectively penetrated the Christian community.
A chief source of ethical failure is the American heresy of individualism that Henry traces back to the political influence of John Locke. His discussion of the conflicts between a “natural law” view of politics and the biblical perspective is excellent, but the American church experience has its own distinctive tradition of individualism, going all the way back to the Puritan experience in New England, and coming down to the present day through the heritage of revivalism.
A second source of ethical failure in the evangelical tradition in the twentieth century has to do with the negative view of the state that is a part of evangelical culture. Henry sees it rooted in the American historical tradition and in the view of human nature that is derived from Augustine.
The aura of moral pessimism that Henry traces to the influence of Augustine has vital implications for understanding the relationship of evangelicals to society. He points out that faithfulness to the biblical perspective involves a realistic appraisal of the results of the Fall and sin, but also must involve seeing that the image of God has not been eradicated, and provides a basis for society functioning for positive good. He criticizes both evangelicals and liberals for having a one-sided approach, evangelicals emphasizing sinfulness, liberals emphasizing goodness. What is needed is a dialectical approach that sees good and evil existing together in tension in human nature and experience.
A third influence that has worked against faithful social ministry is the influence of Continental pietism, with the emphasis on feeling and experience, and its anti-institutional, and anti-intellectual tendencies.
A fourth characteristic of the evangelical community is what Henry characterizes as an evangelical Gnosticism. (Gnosticism was a heresy of the second century that involved, among other things, the tendency to see the material world as evil, and salvation being obtained through flight to the spiritual.) This evangelical Gnosticism is a viewpoint that sees salvation as spiritual redemption in Christ, divorced from any sort of physical redemption playing itself out in the socio-political world. His comments are bluntly direct:
Thus even the ‘neo-evangelicals’ [referring apparently to the movement of the late 1940s involving such people as his father, Carl F. H. Henry, E. J. Carnell, and Harold John Ockenga] who lament the tendency of conservatives to divorce the gospel from real life, are prone to suggest that at least the evangelical community has not abandoned the ‘heart of the gospel message.’ Or they suggest that while Christianity does indeed relate to the whole of life, and that the church has a mission to address the gospel to all dimensions of human existence, the ‘primary task’ of the church is still to preach the gospel....
But I suspect that there has been another reason for the tendency to gnosticize the gospel on the part of the evangelical community.... Evangelicals are, by and large, very comfortable in terms of their socio-economic position. And any gospel which takes seriously either the Old Testament or the New Testament injunctions to care for the poor and to free oneself of materialistic concerns is a hard pill to swallow.” (pp 54-55).
After dealing with these roots of ethical failure, Henry goes on to lay some foundations for faithfulness to the social dimensions of the gospel. He elaborates on the necessity of a proper understanding of human nature in society, and concludes: “What is desperately needed is a via media between [the] two extremes. What is needed is an ethic which recognizes that all men still bear the image of God and thereby possess the capacity for an inclusive society based on natural ethics and at the same time recognizes that man’s fall into sin places fundamental limitations on the success of such an endeavor” (p. 66).
This dialectical view of human nature is the foundation for his discussion of the nature of politics. His model of politics is basically one of conflict/compromise/consensus. Both evangelicals and liberals tend to view conflict as evil. However, Henry suggests that “conflict is a consequence of the ego-centeredness of man resulting from the Fall. Conflict makes politics necessary.” He then goes on, “Consensus is the product of man’s ability to reach beyond pure self-interest. Consensus makes politics possible” (p. 68).
Consensus is the product of compromise. Compromise is inevitable in the political system because of the necessity of balancing out conflicts of interest. Compromise for Henry involves the give and take of the political process.
He then turns to some of the moral ambiguities involved in politics. He makes the important point that while truth is not relative, our grasp of it is, which should lead Christians to an element of humility in making moral judgments. Other dimensions that he sees in the problem of moral ambiguity deal with the complicated issues faced in the political arena, and the unintended consequences of almost all political acts.
After dealing at length with these theoretical questions, which are necessary foundations, Henry moves on to concrete suggestions for involvement by the evangelical community. He spends eight pages criticizing denominational pronouncements, setting the stage for discussing the need for the laity to be involved at the local congregational level.
Questions of politics are meaningless for Henry outside the context of discipleship: “…we must begin by regaining a genuine sense of the full dimensions of Christian discipleship. We cannot talk merely about effective means of political action without first of all establishing true Christian motivations and concern for social and political questions” (p. 100). It is vital that this take place at the congregational level— “…the really important thing is to transform the attitudes and conduct of Christian believers at the grass roots level” (p. 104).
The political education of the local congregations should lead to action. Henry is basically optimistic about the influence Christians can have if they become politically mobilized. He points to studies that have shown that only one percent of the population is involved in electoral politics in any way beyond voting. This means that in a city of 100,000, with 65 percent adults, only about 650 people will be actively engaged in politics. Henry says that this means that even one congregation, if properly mobilized, could have a significant impact.
While he feels the church has an indispensible role in educating its members, as an institution it should not become involved. Rather, it should provide the support for those who do. He suggests involvement in party affairs, support of particular candidates, and active membership in special-interest groups as possible means of political engagement.
I appreciated Politics For Evangelicals, and am in substantial agreement with much of his analysis. However, I have disagreements, and these are at foundational levels.
Real problems arise from the way Henry looks at politics—the conflict/consensus model, confined to electoral politics. This model is a good base from which to start if the political situation is composed of participants of relatively equal strength. It is particularly helpful in some local situations. It overlooks some of the basic realities of the American political system, which by no stretch of the imagination is made up of players of equal strength. In
This is directly involved with a second fundamental criticism I have. Henry has insight into a crucial area, the need for discipleship in a committed laity at the congregational level. But, it seems to me that he fails to carry out the implications of his insights. His discussion goes from the need for discipleship directly to action, without dealing with the “how” of educating and mobilizing the laity. By and large, evangelical congregations today do not provide potential bases of support for people desiring to engage in social action. Because of the patterns of belief that characterize large segments of the evangelical community, a major re-educational effort is needed to bring people out of their social isolation.
The church must recover its function as the body of Christ which builds each member up in growth toward maturity, and in which each member has a place in the ministry. It must be the body that supports people struggling to live faithfully in a world that undermines our allegiance to our Lord. As the church begins to function as that body, it needs to act as a community where issues of faith and practice are raised, discussed, and acted upon. Politics For Evangelicals skips over the difficulties that are involved in this task. It seems to me that Richard Mouw, a colleague of Henry’s in the philosophy department at Calvin, deals far more adequately with the necessity of building Christian community as a place where political reflection and action originates (See his Political Evangelism, Eerdman’s, 1974; see my review in the April 1974 Post-American).
Questions of community and power remain as two of the most fundamental facing the evangelical community. Political action by evangelicals will be as ineffective as the pronouncements by liberal denominational leaders unless action is genuinely rooted in a people who are striving to be faithful disciples.
Social action is going to have to be understood in broader terms than involvement in electoral politics. Most of the recent discussion of social action has not gone beyond calling for traditional political involvement—elections, political education, setting up caucuses, lobbying. Confronting power by prophetic actions, and seeking change through nonviolent resistance and other means, has not received a great deal of discussion. Electoral politics is one vocation for evangelicals, but it is only one among a number of approaches to social action. Structured oppression needs to be analyzed with keen insight, and attacked in many different ways by people based in the community brought about by God’s Spirit.
Boyd Reese was book review editor of the Post American when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!