In the early 20thC, American Catholics of a reactionary bent resembled their European counterparts by hewing to a narrative about modernity and moral/spiritual decline since the French Revolution — de Maistre and a lot of historiography after him. A prominent Protestant variation fermented then in the Netherlands (under the boot of Napoleon at first) and emerges as a feature of the "Kuyperianism" that influenced Rushdooney, Schaeffer, and Evangelicals high and low. Concurrently, Russian anti-Bolshevik literature enters the mix. You can find all this stuff coming together in key influencers like Carl Henry who, like many people in this genre of reactionary historiography, can be explained in large part by a personal family story of immigration and cultural dislocation. Ultimately what seems to happen, as American Protestants and Catholics get together in the postwar conservative movement, is a fusionism of historical narratives. That's why Barton and Barr have a common mythos. Peter Kreeft is another great example of how and why this happened. It's easy to trace these narratives and trends within the nationalist, anti-globalist, anti-liberal (often Christian) cultures of the anglosphere as well as the new crises of europe, which are exacerbated by reactionary religious nationalism that is cynically appropriated and pushed for political and strategic gains by various parties and individuals.
I haven't head of Carl Henry, but will look into him. I do think that this sense of 'cultural dislocation' is interesting. Many writers in the midcentury period seemed to feel this way - Marshall McLuhan comes to mind - but he looks to media rather than some sense of moral and religious failing to understand why he felt out of step.
Separate thoughts on McLuhan... I have a long but superficial exposure to his ideas in the areas of media ecology / media studies / book history / technology. And I know a bit about his religious background — which seems more emphasized in his son's odd continuation of his work. I live in McLuhan's hometown now; I really should dig a little deeper. I've been interested to hear your mention of him as you seem to be reading him in depth. This is a very interesting observation — feeling lost in modernity and dealing with that very male problem of alienation is something that Neil Postman struggled to keep from being overly expressed as a moral and religious failing, but he had an increasingly rabbinical take on it all, I think. Ivan Illich saw the moral and spiritual failure of modernity as one embedded in our tools and media but also our hearts. Both of them, with MM, are related figures who all depended on the work of Walter Ong, SJ and probably others like Ellul who are theological thinkers. Illich did his work indirectly as a Catholic theologian who wanted to subvert the church. MM may have a similar aspect. In the 1970s when they were all big, this was not unusual. Woody Allen (Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters) comes to mind.
One of the good things he did with Christianity Today was to limit the influence of Rushdooney, whom J. Howard Pew brought onto the board, and eventually get rid of him, IIRC. On the other hand, this is an example of how Evangelical media organs like CT are just like their "secular" counterparts in the conservative movement — like The National Review there are always radical, racist, ideological extremists who are also just pretty clearly problem people — but they are used and kept in-house for various reasons but swept under the rug and cleaned up after. When they prove uncontainable and exert real influence, there is always a pretension of "we had no idea!" and other excuses. BS. They incubate and sustain extremists of the right while purging the social gospel left types.
In the early 20thC, American Catholics of a reactionary bent resembled their European counterparts by hewing to a narrative about modernity and moral/spiritual decline since the French Revolution — de Maistre and a lot of historiography after him. A prominent Protestant variation fermented then in the Netherlands (under the boot of Napoleon at first) and emerges as a feature of the "Kuyperianism" that influenced Rushdooney, Schaeffer, and Evangelicals high and low. Concurrently, Russian anti-Bolshevik literature enters the mix. You can find all this stuff coming together in key influencers like Carl Henry who, like many people in this genre of reactionary historiography, can be explained in large part by a personal family story of immigration and cultural dislocation. Ultimately what seems to happen, as American Protestants and Catholics get together in the postwar conservative movement, is a fusionism of historical narratives. That's why Barton and Barr have a common mythos. Peter Kreeft is another great example of how and why this happened. It's easy to trace these narratives and trends within the nationalist, anti-globalist, anti-liberal (often Christian) cultures of the anglosphere as well as the new crises of europe, which are exacerbated by reactionary religious nationalism that is cynically appropriated and pushed for political and strategic gains by various parties and individuals.
I haven't head of Carl Henry, but will look into him. I do think that this sense of 'cultural dislocation' is interesting. Many writers in the midcentury period seemed to feel this way - Marshall McLuhan comes to mind - but he looks to media rather than some sense of moral and religious failing to understand why he felt out of step.
Separate thoughts on McLuhan... I have a long but superficial exposure to his ideas in the areas of media ecology / media studies / book history / technology. And I know a bit about his religious background — which seems more emphasized in his son's odd continuation of his work. I live in McLuhan's hometown now; I really should dig a little deeper. I've been interested to hear your mention of him as you seem to be reading him in depth. This is a very interesting observation — feeling lost in modernity and dealing with that very male problem of alienation is something that Neil Postman struggled to keep from being overly expressed as a moral and religious failing, but he had an increasingly rabbinical take on it all, I think. Ivan Illich saw the moral and spiritual failure of modernity as one embedded in our tools and media but also our hearts. Both of them, with MM, are related figures who all depended on the work of Walter Ong, SJ and probably others like Ellul who are theological thinkers. Illich did his work indirectly as a Catholic theologian who wanted to subvert the church. MM may have a similar aspect. In the 1970s when they were all big, this was not unusual. Woody Allen (Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters) comes to mind.
Carl F. H. Henry? He's huge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_F._H._Henry
One of the good things he did with Christianity Today was to limit the influence of Rushdooney, whom J. Howard Pew brought onto the board, and eventually get rid of him, IIRC. On the other hand, this is an example of how Evangelical media organs like CT are just like their "secular" counterparts in the conservative movement — like The National Review there are always radical, racist, ideological extremists who are also just pretty clearly problem people — but they are used and kept in-house for various reasons but swept under the rug and cleaned up after. When they prove uncontainable and exert real influence, there is always a pretension of "we had no idea!" and other excuses. BS. They incubate and sustain extremists of the right while purging the social gospel left types.