Justin Taylor's Blog, page 63

What to Do If You Are Offended or Confused by Flannery O’Connor’s Stories?

Novelist and O’Connor scholar Jonathan Rogers writes:

Readers are often offended by Flannery O’Connor’s stories.

They ought to be; the stories are offensive.

Jesus’s parables would offend us, too, if we hadn’t heard them so many times—or if we were paying better attention.

In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, we can all understand why the older brother, the one who has kept his nose clean, is offended by his father’s eager welcoming of the wayward brother. It’s a little shocking to realize that Jesus presents the older brother as just as big a jerk as the younger brother. Consider how much more shocking it would have been for Jesus’s original audience, who hadn’t already been told what they were supposed to think about the story.

The parables are driven by that dissonance between the truth and the way we feel about the truth. Jesus shows us what the kingdom of God looks like; if we allow ourselves to be offended by that vision, we begin to see what needs to happen in our hearts.

I say I love grace, but I’m bothered by the fact that the vineyard workers who showed up an hour before dark get paid the same amount as the workers who started at daybreak. I can either reject that parable altogether, or I can think about why my heart doesn’t line up with the things I say I believe. But it would be a big mistake to explain away the offense—to say it’s not really that offensive.

O’Connor was working from Jesus’s playbook. She used shock and offense to show us something about our hearts. “To the hard of hearing you shout,” she wrote, “and for the almost blind you draw large and startling figures.”

Rogers explores these ideas in the introduction to his book, The Terrible Speed of Mercy:

If [O’Connor’s] stories offend conventional morality, it is because the gospel itself is an offense to conventional morality. Grace is a scandal; it always has been. Jesus put out the glad hand to lepers and cripples and prostitutes and losers of every stripe even as he called the self-righteous a brood of vipers.

In “A Good Man Is Hard to Find,” it is painful to see a mostly harmless old grandmother come to terms with God and herself only at gunpoint.

It is even more painful to see her get shot anyway.

In a more properly moral story, she would be rewarded for her late-breaking insight and her life would be spared. But the story only enacts what Christians say they believe already: that to lose one’s body for the sake of one’s soul is a good trade indeed. It’s a mystery, and no small part of the mystery is the reader’s visceral reaction to truths he claims to believe already. O’Connor invites us to step into such mysteries, but she never resolves them. She never reduces them to something manageable.

O’Connor speaks with the ardor of an Old Testament prophet in her stories. She’s like an Isaiah who never quite gets around to “Comfort ye my people.” Except for this: there is a kind of comfort in finally facing the truth about oneself. That’s what happens in every one of Flannery O’Connor’s stories: in a moment of extremity, a character—usually a self-satisfied, self-sufficient character—finally comes to see the truth of his situation. He is accountable to a great God who is the source of all. He inhabits mysteries that are too great for him. And for the first time there is hope, even if he doesn’t understand it yet . . .

In O’Connor’s unique vision, the physical world, even at its seediest and ugliest, is a place where grace still does its work. In fact, it is exactly the place where grace does its work. Truth tells itself here, no matter how loud it has to shout.

You can read “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” online, written in 1953, when Flannery O’Connor was 28 years old.

On April 22, 1959, the 34-year-old O’Connor visited Vanderbilt University and read “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.” You can listen to the audio below:

When she gave a reading of this story at Hollins College in Virginia on October 14, 1963—just 9 months before she died from complications of lupus—she prefaced it with some remarks.

Among other things, she addressed “what makes a story work, and what makes it hold up as a story”:

I have decided that it is probably some action, some gesture of a character that is unlike any other in the story, one which indicates where the real heart of the story lies.  This would have to be an action or a gesture which was both totally right and totally unexpected; it would have to be one that was both in character and beyond character; it would have to suggest both the world and eternity.  The action or gesture I’m talking about would have to be on the anagogical level, that is, the level which has to do with the Divine life and our participation in it.  It would be a gesture that transcended any neat allegory that might have been intended or any pat moral categories a reader could make.  It would be a gesture which somehow made contact with mystery.

She identifies the place of such a “gesture” in “A Good Man Is Hard to Find”:

The Grandmother is at last alone, facing the Misfit. Her head clears for an instant and she realizes, even in her limited way, that she is responsible for the man before her and joined to him by ties of kinship which have their roots deep in the mystery she has been merely prattling about so far. And at this point, she does the right thing, she makes the right gesture.

I find that students are often puzzled by what she says and does here, but I think myself that if I took out this gesture and what she says with it, I would have no story. What was left would not be worth your attention. Our age not only does not have a very sharp eye for the almost imperceptible intrusions of grace, it no longer has much feeling for the nature of the violence which precede and follow them.  The devil’s greatest wile, Baudelaire has said, is to convince us that he does not exist.

On the violence in her stories, O’Connor comments:

In my own stories I have found that violence is strangely capable of returning my characters to reality and preparing them to accept their moment of grace. Their heads are so hard that almost nothing else will do the work. This idea, that reality is something to which we must be returned at considerable cost, is one which is seldom understood by the casual reader, but it is one which is implicit in the Christian view of the world.

O’Connor knows that some people label this story “grotesque,” but she prefers to call it “literal”:

A good story is literal in the same sense that a child’s drawing is literal. When a child draws, he doesn’t intend to distort but to set down exactly what he sees, and as his gaze is direct, he sees the lines that create motion. Now the lines of motion that interest the writer are usually invisible. They are lines of spiritual motion. And in this story you should be on the lookout for such things as the action of grace in the Grandmother’s soul, and not for the dead bodies.

O’Conner elsewhere expanded on the comparison of stories and drawings:

When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock-to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.

You can get Jonathan Rogers’ spiritual biography of Flannery O’Connor (and follow his blog).

You can also get O’Connor’s complete stories for just over $10.

John Piper: 20 Principles for How Christians Should Relate to Muslims (And Those of Other Religions)

John Piper’s August 2002 paper on “Tolerance, Truth-Telling, Violence, and Law: Principles for How Christians Should Relate to Those of Other Faiths” did not get a great deal of attention at the time (so far as I recall), but it remains just as relevant now as it did in the months following 9/11.

It was originally prompted by the question of how Christians and Muslims should relate to each other. “This question,” Piper explains, “is part of the larger issue of how Christians are called to live in a pluralistic world. More specifically, how shall we as American Christians think and act with regard to freedom of religion in a pluralistic context defined by the ideals of representative democracy? In particular, how shall we bear witness to the supremacy of Christ in a world where powerful cultures and religions do not share the love of freedom or the ideals of democracy?”

I’ve reproduced the principles below.

1. Whether approved or disapproved by others, we should thankfully and joyfully hold firmly to the true biblical understanding of God and the way of salvation he has provided and the life of love and purity and justice Christ has modeled and taught.

(1 Corinthians 15:2; Hebrews 3:6;4:14; 6:18; 10:23; Revelation 2:13, 25; 3:11)

2. Both in the church and the world we should make clear and explicit the whole counsel of God revealed in his inspired word, the Bible—both the parts that non-Christians approve and the parts that they don’t. We should not conceal aspects of our faith in order to avoid criticism or disapproval.

(Matthew 10:27-28; Ephesians 6:19-20; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Galatians 1:10)

3. It is loving to point out the error and harm of Christ-denying faiths. The harm consists not only in some temporal effects, but especially in the eternal pain caused by refusing the truth of Christ. This warning should be given with earnestness and longing for the good of those who are in danger of the consequences of not trusting Christ.

(Luke 6:31-32; Romans 13:10; 1 Timothy 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:20)

4. We Christians should acknowledge our sin and desperate need of salvation by a crucified and risen Savior, so that we do not posture ourselves as worthy of salvation as if we had superior intellect or wisdom or goodness. We are beggars who have, by grace, found the life-giving bread of truth, forgiveness, and joy. We desire to offer it to all, so that they join us in admiring and enjoying the greatness of Christ forever.

(1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 4:7; 1 Peter 5:6;James 4:8-10; Luke 18:13-14; Matthew 10:8b)

5. We should present Christ not as the triumph of an argument among religions but as the most trustworthy, beautiful, important, and precious person in history, and as our desperately needed and loved substitute in two senses: (1) He absorbed, by his suffering and death, the wrath of God in our place; and (2) he became our righteousness before the all-holy God by living a sinless life which was imputed as righteousness to us when we believed on Jesus.

(1 Corinthians 2:1-2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Peter 2:6-7; Romans 3:24-26; 5:18-19; Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21)

6. We should make clear that Christian faith, which unites us to Christ and all his saving benefits, is a childlike, self-despairing trust in the worth and work of Christ, not a meritorious work of our own. Our call for others to be Christians is not a call to work for God or to earn his approval by doing deeds of righteousness or love. We are calling for people to renounce all self-reliance and rely entirely on the saving life and death of Jesus Christ.

(Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5;Romans 4:4-5; Romans 10:1-4; Philippians 3:9)

7. We believe it is a just and loving thing to publicly point out the errors of other faiths, provided this is done with sufficient evidence that the sacred writings or representative spokesmen of those faiths do indeed express these errors. It is crucial that we strive to avoid misrepresenting other faiths, as that is not only disrespectful but also undermines our own credibility.

(Acts 6:8-7:53; Mark 12:24; Mark 8:33; Acts 3:15; 5:30; Exodus 20:16; Ephesians 4:25)

8. As we expose the errors of other religions, we should feel and express sorrow and compassion for those who do not embrace Christ so as to be saved.

(Luke 19:41-42; Philippians 3:18; Romans 9:1-3; 10:1)

9. We should make clear that we are Christians first and Americans second. We are aliens and exiles in the world and our deepest and truest citizenship is in heaven. Our decisive Lord and Leader is Jesus Christ, not the president of the United States. This first and deepest allegiance unites us with Christians of all nationalities more firmly than our secular citizenship unites us with other Americans. In regard to many American values and behaviors we are dissenting citizens. American culture is not Christianity. We believe it is not unpatriotic to criticize unjust and ungodly aspects of our own culture.

(Philippians 3:20; 1 Peter 2:11; Matthew 22:21; Acts 5:29; 1 Timothy 6:14-15; Revelation 17:14; Ephesians 5:11)

10. We should not expect a “fair fight” in a secular world that is hostile to God and uncomfortable around the truth of Christ. Therefore, our response to abuse or distortion or slander should not be angry resentment, but patient witness to the truth, in the hope and with the prayer that returning good for evil may open hearts to the truth. We must recognize that persecution of various kinds is normal and that much of the protection we have in America is abnormal in history and in the world. Our witness will not be advanced by resentful huffing and puffing about our rights. It will be advanced by “suffering yet always rejoicing,” and by overcoming evil with good, and by steadfast statements and reasonable defenses of the truth.

(Matthew 5:43-45; Romans 12:17-21; 1 Corinthians 4:12-13; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:12; 1 Peter 2:15, 19-24; 3:9; 4:12)

11. We should renounce all violence as means of spreading our faith. Biblical Christians do not try to spread their faith by the use of political or personal violence. Christians spread their faith by suffering, not by causing suffering. Authentic Christianity cannot be coerced by force or manipulation.

(Luke 10:3; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Colossians 2:24; 1 Peter 2:19-24; Revelation 12:11; )

12. We should acknowledge and proclaim that Christ will, at his personal appearing, punish those who have rejected him. He will assign them to everlasting judgment in the miseries of hell. However we must make just as clear that Christ’s violence at the end of the age is a decisive reason we should not and may not exert violence against others because of their beliefs. This is Christ’s right, not ours.

(Matthew 25:46; Romans 12:19; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; 1 Peter 2:20-23; Revelation 6:16)

13. In this present time before the coming of Christ himself in person, civil authorities should not use physical force or any other coercion of power or withheld benefits to reward or punish persons because of their beliefs. (Implied in the biblical pattern of voluntary faith sought by the power of persuasion and example; and in the necessity of divine enabling grace for conversion.

2 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 6:14; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)

14. No physical force or any other coercion of power, or withheld benefits, should be used by civil authorities to punish persons because of their speech or writing or art, unless the communication can be shown, through due process of law, to reveal intentions to commit crimes or help others commit crimes.

(See the support for #13)

15. We believe that God has given to civil government, not individuals or the church, the duty to “bear the sword” for justice and safety.

(Matthew 26:52; Romans 13:1-4; Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 2:20-23; 3:9, 14)

16. We should distinguish between a just war of defense against aggression and a religious war against people because of their beliefs. We should acknowledge that this distinction will probably not be recognized by certain religions who define their beliefs to include the right of cultural domination by force. But we should insist on this distinction rather than accept the claim of the aggressor that our resistance to their aggression is a religious attack on their faith. We should argue that the ground of such national defense is the civil right to freedom (of religion and speech and press and assembly), not the disapproval of the religion underlying the attack. We will deeply disagree with other religions, but that disagreement is not the ground of armed national defense. We should distinguish between the de facto military resistance against a religiously motivated force, on the one hand, and the motivation of our resistance, on the other hand, which is not rejection of any religion but freedom for all religions to win converts by non-violent means of persuasion and attraction.

(Implied in the previous principles)

17. We should acknowledge that beliefs and behaviors do not have the same standing before the law. No beliefs are to be punished by civil authorities. But some behaviors rooted in beliefs may be outside the law and therefore punishable by the civil authority. These behaviors may include killing other people, assault, stealing, various forms of discrimination, etc. Which behaviors are legally prohibited in a society based on freedom of belief and freedom of religion, will be determined in a process of persuasion and debate and election of representative law-makers, with checks and balances provided by the executive and judicial branches and by constitutional safe-guards for the rights of the minority. Ambiguities are recognized.

(See the support for # 13 and the implications of the previous principles taken together)

18. We should distinguish between the right to express criticism of erroneous beliefs and sinful behaviors, on the one hand, and the false inference some draw from this criticism that proponents of the criticized beliefs can therefore legitimately be mistreated. We should not accept the claim that being criticized or denounced as mistaken or as sinners is a form of “mistreatment”. It is not a crime (hate crime or otherwise) to publicly call someone’s belief wrong and harmful, or to call someone’s behavior sinful and destructive. A necessary part of all debate concerning beliefs and behaviors and proposals is the argument that some are wrong, ill-founded, and have deleterious effects. This is how all political debate proceeds. This is not illegitimate in the religious sphere. For example, if someone violently assaulted a U. S. Senator on the street after he had been criticized on the floor of the Senate because his bill was flawed and based on misinformation and would lead to hurting poor people, we would not blame the criticizing Senator for the later violent assault and accuse him of inciting violence. Hence we must distinguish between public criticism of beliefs and behaviors, on the one hand, and the illegitimate inference that these erroneous beliefs and sinful behaviors warrant being mistreated.

(See the support for #3 and #7)

19. We believe that different beliefs change the inner meaning of all convictions and behaviors, but do not change the form of all convictions and behaviors. Hence, for example, two persons may have different beliefs but hold the same form of conviction and behavior concerning abortion. We desire that all people share faith in Christ and have convictions and behaviors whose inner meaning is that Christ is the Lord and treasure of life. But, even so, we are glad when the form of our convictions and behaviors are shared by those who differ with us in faith. We believe that it is possible to make common cause with them in social issues provided that this shared action does not undermine the ground and meaning of our Christ-exalting conviction.

(1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17; Romans 14:23)

20. We believe that every religion, world view, or philosophy of life may freely endeavor to influence and shape our culture. We renounce the use of force or bribery or deceit in this culture-shaping effort. We affirm the preaching of the gospel, the publishing of truth, the modeling of love and justice, the power of prayer, the use of persuasion, and participation in the political process. We recognize that all laws “impose” some group’s behavioral conviction on all. Thus it is not a compelling criticism to say that a law which governs behavior is bad because it “imposes someone’s morality” on society. Nevertheless, this makes it all the more important that we support principles, laws, and policies that protect the legal freedoms of minorities who do not have the numbers to sway law-making processes. The extent of these freedoms is determined by the principles expressed above, especially #17.

(Implied in the previous principles and supports)

The Book of Psalms: Outlined and Explained with Animation

The latest video from the Bible Project:

You can watch the rest of the videos here.

A Beautiful Documentary Film on Whether There Is Evidence the Exodus Ever Took Place

Even as Christian films continue to grow in popularity, critics—even Christian ones—continue to complain that though improvements are being made, they still continue to be deficient in giving us one-dimensional characters, formulaic or simplistic stories, with a lack of technical artistry in the screenwriting, cinematography, acting, and directing.

But when Christians do produce something both beautiful and sophisticated, Christians should be the first in line to sing its praises.

So taking my own counsel here, let me commend to you the documentary film, Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. Here is a brief description:

What is the validity of history found in the Bible? Is it fact or fiction? What does the hard evidence really have to say about the foundational story of the Old Testament: the Exodus out of Egypt? An in-depth investigation by documentary filmmaker Tim Mahoney searches for answers to these questions amid startling new finds that may change traditional views of history and the Bible.

 

The medium of film requires simplification and does not allow for every nuance and argument to come through. But the medium of film also provides us with images and voices that do not come through the written page. I think Tim Mahoney and his team have produced a beautiful film with arguments that merit serious consideration.

It’s also nice to see that they have done the behind-the-scenes work to make the film available for rent or purchase or streaming through various venues. For example, you can rent or purchase it from Amazon, or watch it on Netflix, or purchase it on YouTube.

Here is the trailer:

This would be a great film to watch in youth groups, as a family, or with an unbelieving friend who is willing to consider the historicity of the Old Testament.

Short Film | How the Humble Mustard Seed Reminds Us of God’s Global Unstoppable Kingdom

I enjoy the short films put out by Moving Works. Here is their latest:

Allen Guelzo | The Illusion of Respectability

Allen Guelzo is the Henry R. Luce III Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College, where he serves as Director of the Civil War Era Studies Program. He is widely recognized as one of the leading scholars of the Civil War in general and Abraham Lincoln in particular.

He is also a committed Christian and churchman. Though far better known for his work on Lincoln and the Civil War, he has also written noteworthy studies on Jonathan Edwards and free will and on the Reformed Episcopalians, as well as co-editing a book on the New England Theology.

Dr. Guelzo has just published a new article for Christianity Today online that should be read by anyone concerned about the evangelical mind and the temptation for respectability.

Here is the beginning:

It is very nearly four decades since, as a terribly callow graduate student with an interest in philosophy, I made a pilgrimage with a friend to the home of a professor of Christian apologetics. I was looking for direction, and even though Cornelius Van Til had been retired for many years, he was known to welcome inquirers—whom he often greeted on his front porch with a rake in hand, suggesting that perhaps they could pile-up his leaves for him before they talked.

I was hoping to hear an intimidating, intellectually-convoluted, scholastic, metaphysical strategy for blowing the philosopher’s version of Gideon’s trumpet. So I asked Van Til, then pushing eighty but with still the hard white comb of hair brushed back from his cliff-like Dutch brow, and the smile of an old Dutch dairy farmer (which his father had been), “Dr. Van Til, why did you decide to devote your life to the study of philosophy and the teaching of apologetics?”

And I then sat back to allow the metaphysics free room to roll. Kees Van Til never blinked.

“Why,” he said, “to protect Christ’s little ones.”

The surprise that could have dropped me to the floor that afternoon has never quite evaporated. Why, to protect Christ’s little ones. Not only because those words express a great nobility in a few syllables, but because, remembering them, they cast down every castle of intellectual folly I erect, or am tempted to erect. And because, at the end, I am not worthy of them, and because anyone who understands that the kingdom of God is our true home, that God’s people are truly our people, and that this is a world by turns indifferent and hostile to both, must see those words as a true reminder of what we owe to each other as Christians, and in what relation we stand to each other.

I recall those words—Why, to protect Christ’s little ones—with tears, first because I have not always lived according to them, but second because it is precisely the world of the scholar and historian that encourages me to ignore them. Certainly, I do not recall in graduate school ever being so advised. I was so busy protecting myself as a graduate student in history that I barely had time to worry about those little ones. I had only just earned the PhD and was on the job market when my department’s graduate chairman took me aside, and in the kindliest terms, said, “I wish I didn’t have to say this, but you should know that the slightest hint of religion on your resume is the kiss of death.”

In the years since I was given that advice, the shadows have only grown longer in the academic world.

If this is a subject that interests you, I highly recommend you read the whole thing. It is a beautiful and bracing piece.

Here is Professor Guelzo’s conclusion:

When we no longer make ourselves the center of our desires, when we take as our aim as Christian scholars, college presidents, pastors, thinkers, to make perfect our wills, then and only then do I imagine that we will have any real effect on the world—only when we have surrendered the notion of having an effect will we have one. And only then will we begin to see that our real priority is not to change the world, to change our professions, to publish this or footnote that, but to protect Christ’s little ones.

Again, the whole thing is here. I hope this piece spreads far and wide as those called to academic work will take it to heart.

Harold Best | Harps & Riddles: My Life in the Arts

Below is a brilliant and insightful talk by Harold Best, delivered for the Wheaton College Artist Series (September 12, 2015).

I want to tell two stories, the “my-life” part first and the “our-living” part last. The first, I promise you, will in no way comprise a solemn reading of I-knew-whom-studied-with-composed-for-performed-at-drew-applause-from-narrative, because there isn’t that much. I just want to weave in and out of a few things of earlier years in order to get to the harps out and riddles part: those strong, puzzling, paradoxical, truth-informed matters of which pressing on is the essence. And if you take anything away from this evening, forget the Harold Best part except to understand that God truly and graciously has worked on this flawed, oddly limited, and spottily trained life; that He keeps keeping my head and heart turned toward the Cross-emptied Tomb to which the Son of God addressed Himself from the eternities, and from which He, the Very Word of God was raised—who reigns, above, beyond and with us; everlasting, immutably truthful and a treasure trove of wisdom and knowledge. Too high and wonderful? Yes. Do we back off? No. We Press on.

The first part is engaging, and the second part—“a propositionally-laced, time-warped creation parable—in which the riddles that keep me refreshed and baffled are stated, I pray, in a truth-full way”—is worth the entire investment to watch the whole thing.

Tim Keller | Our Identity: The Christian Alternative to Late Modernity’s Story

Tim Keller speaking at chapel for Wheaton College (November 11, 2015), explaining that our culture repudiates as oppressive the idea that someone else names us and gives us an identity, but that when you trust Christ you have the only identity on earth that is received instead of achieved.

Keller goes on defend a form of individualism as inescapable but to critique expression individualism (the idea that you must look inside and then express them outwardly no matter what anyone says). He offers five critiques: it is  (1) incoherent; (2) unstable; (3) illusory; (4) crushing; (5) excluding.

We are social beings who need recognition and naming from outside—someone whom you love, approve, and esteem—to speak to you.

You can watch the whole thing here:

Paul Tripp on Why “AWE” Matters for Everything We Think, Say, and Do

Paul Tripp provides a preview of his new book, Awe: Why It Matters for Everything We Think, Say, and Do (Crossway, 2015).

“I still remember the first time I was in awe of God. It came after years of attending churches and calling myself ‘Christian.’ It was a major turning point in my life. It is an awe of God that inspires my major life decisions as well as my daily actions. Thank you, Paul, for getting beyond symptoms and getting at the heart of the matter. This book is brilliant, and I wish every believer would read it carefully. We live in a crazy time. We need books like this to help lay healthy foundations for our lives, so that we don’t spend our days overreacting to unpredictable events.”

Francis Chan, New York Times best-selling author, Crazy Love and Forgotten God

“Paul Tripp has a way of helping us to get beyond the surface. It is clear that Paul has thought through this subject deeply. Read this book and find yourself challenged and encouraged to stand in awe of the reality of God and to take him seriously because of it!”

Eric M. Mason, Lead Pastor, Epiphany Fellowship, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; President, Thriving; author, Manhood Restored

“When you find yourself in awe of something, you never forget it. It changes you. I just finished reading this book, and I’m writing this at 2:45 a.m. in tears. Convicted—not of my sin but of my righteousness in Christ! In awe of who Jesus is and who I am in him! Tripp has tapped into something that I hope is like a defibrillator to the flatlined believer. We were made to live in awe; may we never forget this!”

Bart Millard, Lead Singer, MercyMe

 

Know Your Roots: Carl Henry and Kenneth Kantzer on Evangelicalism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (1991)

In the spring of 1991, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship co-sponsored a two-day conference on the Deerfield campus entitled “Know Your Roots: Evangelicalism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.”

The hosts were two Trinity colleagues: 44-year-old New Testament professor Don Carson and 49-year-old church history professor John Woodbridge. The guests were two influential theologians of the twentieth century, 74-year-old Kenneth Kantzer (1917-2002) and 78-year-old Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003).

After a short introduction by Dr. Woodbridge, the first the first half-hour lecture is by Dr. Kantzer. He explains that broadly speaking, evangelicalism is synonymous with Protestant orthodoxy, built on the material principle (on the person and work of Christ) and the formal principle (on Scripture as the final authority) of the Reformation. Kantzer then looks at what historian David Moberg calls The Great Reversal, where fundamentalists retreated from social engagement. The neo-evangelicals, in response, sought to recapture this aspect of biblical witness.

In the second half-hour lecture, Dr. Henry introduces neo-evangelicalism against the backdrop of Modernism and the loss of cultural credibility for orthodox Christians. Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy failed on two accounts: they could not give a credible Christian alternative to Modernism, and they could not maintain their historic Christian bearings. So evangelicalism arose seeking to accomplish both, providing a credible testimony in accordance with historic biblical Christianity.

The third and fourth videos, filmed on the second day of the conference, contain an hour-long conversation moderated by Dr. Carson, interviewing the two senior saints. They address issues such as

the role of parachurch organizations
the significance of the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals
the distinction between fundamentalism and evangelicalism
whether Marsden’s linkage between scriptural inerrancy and commonsense realism holds up historically
the effects of the 1960s
the effects of the 1970s
the then-current controversy within the SBC
whether Marsden’s connection between commonsense realism and inerrancy is historically accurate
the place of evangelicalism within the global church movement
the pitfalls and possibilities for the future
the ongoing significance of the term “evangelicalism”
the influence of Pentecostalism on evangelicalism
the role of Christian education
the danger of evangelical accommodation

and more.

You can find both audio and video for the lectures at the helpful Henry Center of TEDS (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4). Those interested in exploring more from Henry himself will enjoy this resource page which includes audio from some sermons and lectures by Henry. [See also Mark Dever’s interview with Henry in October 1997, when Henry was 84 years old, and the new book, Essential Evangelicalism: The Enduring Influence of Carl F. H. Henry, ed. Matthew Hall and Owen Strachan (Crossway, 2015).