Jude
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 58, No. 1 – Fall 2015
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
By Gregory Alan Thornbury. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013. 224 pages. Paperback, $17.99.
Since the time of his passing, Carl F. H. Henry has been identified as the “Dean” and “Michelangelo” of evangelical theologians. Over the course of his career, Henry served in the roles of professor, administrator, journalist, ethicist, lecturer, and ecumenical leader; all the while providing in his written works jeremiads, social and personal ethics, theological treatises, and biblical commentary. His works range from the popular level to the realm of high-minded scholarship. With such an adaptable pen, Henry garnered the reputation as the chief theologian of post-World War II evangelicalism, flanking the movement’s chief evangelist, Billy Graham. Approximately ten years have traversed since Henry’s death, and at the decade mark Gregory Thornbury has published an engagement considering the contribution of Henry for contemporary evangelicalism.
The historical orientation of Thornbury’s argument is that “there really was once a Shire” of evangelicalism (32). This was a day and time when “evangelicalism was a countercultural upstart movement” in which “Carl. F. H. Henry was reaching the intellectuals through Christianity Today” (32). In Thornbury’s opinion, if Henry’s major works are recovered for their force of argument, then the fruits of this “classic evangelicalism” may be recovered (33).
Following an introductory chapter to orient his reader to the existence and the loss of the “Shire,” Thornbury summarizes the thought of Henry according to five themes, each with a chapter under the same heading: Epistemology Matters, Theology Matters, Inerrancy Matters, Culture Matters, and Evangelicalism Matters. For epistemology, he provides an engagement with Henry’s theory of religious knowledge. Thornbury views epistemology as the key mark lost in post-classical evangelicalism, and the key to restoration is a Henry-esque renaissance of philosophical intelligibility. As an indispensable matter of prolegomena, Henry sought to make clear how the “concept of the reliability and authority of the Scriptures could be established and maintained in the modern world” (40). Henry’s assertion is that an articulable theory of religious knowledge and truth are necessary for the defense of the Christian faith. Providing an articulation of the Christian worldview in the face of those supplied from secular sources should be within the scope of the theologian. The key epistemic point necessary for such a worldview by Henry’s account was that God revealed Himself in cognitive-rational terms, with man possessing the capacity to receive this revelation through the endowment of the imago dei. This is a point that must be recovered according to Thornbury.
Following closely from the themes of epistemology, Thornbury turns his attention to engage Henry on the point where he has been most criticized from within the evangelical camp. The chapter titled “Theology Matters” constitutes a selected overview of Henry’s fifteen theses found in volumes two through four of God, Revelation, and Authority[GRA]. Thornbury’s summary of the fifteen theses is perhaps the best primer for GRA for its readability and brevity and one that should be read by anyone preparing to scale the six volume summit. It is in the latter half of this chapter that Thornbury engages the sharpest critiques against Henry, specifically those who view Henry’s emphasis on epistemology and rational-cognitive propositions as a brand of Modernism. Thornbury deals primarily with post-foundationalist evangelicals with a focus on the influence of post-liberalism and speech act theory, to the consequence that he forgoes many Henry critics from outside the modern evangelical camp.
Following Henry’s progression through the divine source and foundations of knowledge, Thornbury turns his attention to the topic for which GRA is most popularly noted—inerrancy. According to Thornbury, Henry’s key contribution concerning the reliability of Scripture is that any debate “over the reliability of the Bible [is] a matter of God’s ability to speak to his people.” (127). Under the heading “Culture Matters,” Thornbury considers Henry’s vision for evangelism and social engagement. For Henry, the most basic need is for believers to become equipped with a competent faith integrated intelligently into all areas of human pursuit. Keying off Henry’s Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, Thornbury points to Henry’s chastising of protestant liberalism for purging orthodox theology from social concern and modern fundamentalism for purging social concern from doctrinal purity.
Finally, Thornbury takes up Henry’s ideals for the movement for which he fought over a lifetime—evangelicalism. Thornbury explains that for Henry, the success of evangelical identity represented the success of the Christian faith. As such, the program Thornbury suggests is one which recovers the “evangelical” vision for Christian foundations across denominational and ecclesiastical boundaries. He observes that once upon a time core doctrinal commitments united believers across ecclesiastical boundaries under the umbrella of evangelicalism, and the power of such a union is a necessary pursuit.
There is much to be commended in Thornbury’s work. Thornbury’s engagement with Henry provides an accessible introduction to his principal ideas. Thornbury jests with justification about the abstruse nature of Henry’s writing. He should be commended that in this work he has provided a well-written and understandable introduction to Henry’s thought. Thornbury’s recollection of the main points of Henry’s fifteen theses constitutes what may be perhaps the best primer of the heart of Henry’s magnum opus. This is no easy accomplishment and reflects Thornbury’s ability to understand Henry deeply and in turn communicate his thought effectively. Additionally, Thornbury should be commended for seeking a theological vision which provides substantive distinctives. Among those distinctives are an articulation of a worldview that is operable in the wake of Modernism and Post-Modernism, full affirmation of dependence upon divine initiative in revelation, integration of Christian implications into all spheres of life, practical engagement in spiritual transformationalism and social concern, and unified doctrinal commitment under the priorities of the kingdom. These emphases are good (for reasons beyond the fact they are found in Henry) and Thornbury has provided a thought-provoking entry into these priorities.
By way of critique, it will be helpful to ask a question of Henry’s “classic evangelicalism” and by implication Thornbury’s proposal for its recovery. The question may be phrased, “Does Henry’s idea of evangelical ecumenism provide the necessary resources for a recovery of his ideals?” Some have opined that a lack of confessional ecclesiology within the neo-evangelical movement is partly to blame for its inability to maintain consistently the doctrinal distinctives Henry and his allies established. As Carl Trueman observes, the decision to “identify more strongly with the coalition movement of evangelicalism than with a particular denomination or local church” tends to sideline doctrinal distinctives (Carl Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind [Chicago: Moody, 2012], 38). As such, the ongoing health of Henry’s evangelical prospectus may have been undermined by his own commitments. This begs the question then if an ecclesial supplement is necessary to the success of recovering “classic evangelicalism’s” ideals. Engagement on this point does not arise as a substantive factor in Thornbury’s comments in the chapter “Evangelicalism Matters.” Acknowledgement of this critique and comment on the prescription for correction in recovering Henry’s vision would have bolstered Thornbury’s proposal. Yet, in conclusion it is undeniable that Thornbury has done contemporary evangelicalism a service by intelligently presenting Henry and calling for a fresh look at the high points of his theology.
