“Individual Escapism”

Evangelical Christianity’s Limited View of Salvation

Samuel Cardillo

I just read Carl F.H. Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Carl Henry is about as Evangelical as they come (graduated from Houghton College and Western Theological Seminary; former president of Fuller seminary; author of 20 books on Evangelicalism. So it’s not surprising that his main point (repeated several times throughout the book) is that the Evangelical redemptive Christian message of individual regeneration through Christ is the only solution to the problem of social evil in the world today. He makes that point over and over again (as I’ll show below). That is, of course, a point that any loyal Evangelical would make.

But first, Henry notes the problem, pointing out that the accusation, prevalent among secular scholars of Christianity, that Fundamentalists are out of touch; as he puts it, there’s “a suspicion on the part of non-evangelicals that there is something in the very nature of Fundamentalism which makes a world ethical view impossible. The conviction is widespread that Fundamentalism takes too pessimistic a view of human nature to make a social program practicable”(p.11).

He expands on that pessimistic view of Fundamentalism a little further: Whereas once the redemptive gospel was a world-changing message, now [in the earlier decades of the 20th century] it was narrowed to a world-resisting message (p.19). He’s referring to the split that occurred in the early part of the 20th century between liberalism and conservatism, which was characterized by a rift between science and the authority of the Bible. Ultimately that rift manifested itself in a schism between personal conversion and social justice. Conservatives withdrew from worldly concerns in favor of personal conversion, while liberals were more interested in social justice.

In other words, in its attempt to avoid attachment to worldly/secular/profane influences, in order to maintain a posture of separation from the “evil” world in which it operates, Evangelical Christianity turned inward and took on a defensive attitude of avoidance of worldliness in order to distinguish itself as separate from the world, or more to the point, to protect itself, against worldly influences. At the other extreme, “non-Evangelicals were working for a just and durable peace which… ruled out specifically Christian regeneration as its conditioning context.” In other words, “peace without any reference to the vicarious atonement and redemption work of Christ” (p.20).

Henry’s point is that Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism (he seems to be using the two terms interchangeably) “stands divorced from the great social reform movements” (p.27). This divorce is seen by the fact that “the challenge of Fundamentalism to the present world mind is almost nonexistent on the great social issues” (p.30), meaning that Christian Fundamentalism has (for the most part) failed to make its redemptive message relevant in the 20th century.

Having made that admission, Henry then points out that Jesus’s message was deeply rooted in his conviction that redemption is the essential ingredient in the solution of social problems. As Henry put it, redemption is “the only adequate test for world weariness, whether political, economic, academic, recreational… It stands in judgment upon all non-Christian solutions” (p.36).

So, early on in the book, Henry, on the one hand, criticizes Evangelicalism’s historic failure to concern itself with social issues, but on the other hand, believes that only Christianity has the answer to the world’s problems.

In building his case, again, Henry claims over and over again that Christ is the only solution to the problem of social evil in the world. (Notice especially the negative view of any possible solution outside of Christianity):

“Christianity (specifically the regenerative and redemptive work of Jesus) opposes evil as the only sufficient formula for its resolution” (p.40).

“Christianity affords… the supreme hope… it is and always will be pertinent” (p.63)

“Evangelicals are convinced that a non-redemptive attack on any problem is sentenced to failure.” (p.76)

“Christianity ought to be in the forefront of reformative attack… Every other foundation for betterment, because of inherent weaknesses, cannot sustain itself” (p.77)

“He [the Evangelical] ought to be counted upon in the war against aggressive conflict, naturalism, intolerance, [etc.] and every wrong… as the only adequate solution” (p.78).

Here’s my point in response to Henry’s insistence that only the Church (rather than secular society) is qualified to step up in its awareness of and involvement in worldly affairs: In light of Henry’s insistence that only Christianity has the answers to society’s ills (and considering that Henry wrote this in 1947), the obvious question is, Where’s the proof? It’s been 75 years since he made that claim; in the meantime, secular culture is clearly thinking harder, in more creative and relevant ways, and with greater urgency, than Evangelical Christianity when it comes to the kinds of global issues we are facing in today’s world (for example, care for the issues like climate change and the environment). Now to be fair, that’s not to say that Evangelical Christianity isn’t concerned with the problems we face in today’s world. Cases in point are the preservation of traditional family unit, pro-life activism, as well as the preaching of biblical values like forgiveness, love of enemies, etc. The difference is that secular culture is concerned with global issues, while Evangelical Christianity is more concerned with individual/family humanitarian issues.

But as Henry points out, in the real world “the evangelical forces do not predominate” in the battle for social betterment, and that from the point of view of Evangelicalism’s inaction over the past 75 years, Evangelical forces still do not predominate in that battle. While there are certainly issues of moral concern to Evangelicals, those concerns are often displayed in the form of anger and hostility toward those who hold views contrary to their convictions in those areas. In a way, that’s understandable, since the convictions held by Evangelicals are based first and foremost on religious (biblical) values. But too often that lack of tolerance displays itself in the form of intolerance and hostility, which seem to be contrary to the very biblical principles that they advocate. Granted, Evangelicals will immediately point to a biblical basis for their anger, for example, Jesus’ display of anger and hostility when he overthrew the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple (an often-cited event that Evangelicals use to show that violent actions are sometimes biblically justified.)

The point I’m trying to make is that anger displayed by hostility and hatred for the other (what Jim Wallace calls the “loss of civility”[1] is never the right response, whether by Evangelical Christians or non-believers. Rather we should seek to understand the motivations behind what our adversaries say instead of pre-judging them solely by their words. That’s because it is far too easy to weaponize our words rather than make the patient effort to communicate with one another on a civil level. Nothing but division and further hostility is gained by the kind of anger and aggression with which we so easily and impatiently attack one another.

Clearly absent in today’s society (on both sides: Evangelical and secular) is an attitude that seeks to understand each other; to interact rather than react; to talk to those we disagree with instead of talking past one another. As Henry wisely observes (near the end of his book), “No evangelicalism which ignores the totality of man’s condition dares respond in the name of Christianity.” (p.83). To be fair, that sentiment should work both ways: “No viewpoint which ignores the biblical assessment of man’s condition dares respond in the name of Secularism.”

Back to the point of Henry’s book, he also makes a closing claim that I simply cannot agree with: “there is no need for Fundamentalism to embrace liberalism’s defunct social gospel.” I disagree for two reasons:

(1) Defined as “Christian faith practiced as a call not just to personal conversion but to social reform,” the social gospel is most certainly not defunct. The term “social gospel” has been unfairly judged by Evangelical Christianity for various reasons, but to characterize it as “defunct” is simply pure nonsense and denial of its positive value.

(2) Fundamentalism absolutely does need to widen its outlook and embrace liberalism’s positive view of social reform over against its narrow focus on personal conversion.

But navigating through the weeds of the complicated theological questions, the reality is quite clear (and this is perhaps the underlying, unwritten message of Henry’s book) — Evangelical Christianity is burdened (and I do mean “burdened”) with the belief that’s narrowly focused on individual salvation from (“out of”) the world system, rather than an corporate/global (and much larger and more generous) mentality that is focused on the world outside of Evangelicalism’s limited idea of salvation of individual souls.

In theological terms, Evangelical Christianity’s limited focus on personal/individual redemption imagines a “small” God — a God who, on the one hand was capable of creating a magnificent and functional universe and setting in place in that world his creation of humanity, yet at the same time has set in place a system that negates his own creative genius to the point where most of humanity ends up in eternal fiery torture! It simply defies any sense of rationality, let alone any grand image of a God of love!

All that to ask, in other words, is the focus of Evangelical Christianity too narrow? Granted, that narrow focus on individual redemption includes a mentality that encourages (even obligates) individual Christians to lead as many souls into their belief system as possible. So at least there is a sort of wider redemptive quality mixed into that individualistic mentality.

But the obvious problem remains; and it is a serious problem — no matter how many “lost souls” are rescued (“saved”), Evangelical Christianity (by it’s nature) must be okay with both the “individual escapist” mentality” and the certainty that in the end, most of creation will suffer immeasurable eternal torment. It all comes down to that in the end; Christianity, with its glorious gospel promise of a blissful eternity, has no answer for the question of God’s universal and eternal love and care for all of humanity.