Christians Under the
Scripture:
A Lecture by Dr. Francis Schaeffer
Notre Dame University, April 1981
Commentary by John W. Whitehead
12/23/03
“True
spirituality covers nothing less than the totality of life and the
totality of reality.”
“Christianity is not a series of truths in the
plural but, rather, truth spelled with a capital ‘T.’”
“What Is a Christian Lawyer?”
“We live in a secularized society and in
a secularized sociological time of law.”
“Where have the Christian lawyers been?”
“We must stop seeing things in bits and
pieces.”
“The issue is not abortion but the low view
of human life.”
“There is a window that is open.”
“Christianity has lost its influence in the
general culture.”
“What is the Christian’s final
relationship to the state?”
“Practicing the Christian alternatives will
be costly.”
In a 1997 article in Christianity Today
on the legacy of Francis August Schaeffer, Michael Hamilton wrote
that “perhaps no intellectual save C.S. Lewis affected the thinking
of [20th century] evangelicals more profoundly; perhaps no leader
of the period save Billy Graham left a deeper stamp on the movement
as a whole.”
The long shadow cast by Francis Schaeffer over today’s evangelicals
is as complex as it is significant—his words and ideas have
not dimmed in the two decades since his death at age 72 in 1984; rather,
they have sharpened. Although the lecture at the center of the discussion
that follows was delivered in 1981, it still serves nevertheless as
a penetrating analysis of our culture’s competing worldviews
and as a prophetic call to authentic Christian action.
The foundations for Schaeffer’s impact on worldwide Christianity
were quietly laid in the years he and his family spent working among
the youth of Switzerland, welcoming them into their home, which they
called L’Abri, or “shelter,” to discuss philosophy
and art along with Christianity. As Schaeffer and his wife, Edith,
preached the gospel through hospitality along with words, he began
to realize that the philosophical presuppositions of youths raised
in secularist Europe were no longer compatible with those of Christianity.
In the years that followed, he also began to understand that because
modern Christian thought had divided religious and material truth
into separate realities, Christianity had no coherent answer to the
threat of secularism. By relegating God’s truth only to the
realm of religion, modern Christians had surrendered the spheres of
philosophy, art, science and politics, leaving the conception of reality
to be defined by those who did not believe in God.
It was from this realized dilemma that Schaeffer published his first
book, The God Who Is There, in 1968. The book grew out of a series
of lectures delivered at Wheaton College and addressed the seismic
shift in Western culture, which traded a foundationally Christian
world-view for a foundationally atheistic concept of reality, beginning
with the Enlightenment and culminating in the existential despair
of the 20th century. In the face of this philosophical shift, Schaeffer
first introduced the concept of “pre-evangelism,” arguing
that true Christianity is impossible without first establishing a
correct understanding of true reality:
Before a man is ready to become
a Christian, he must have a proper understanding of truth. …
All people, whether they realize it or not, function in the framework
of some concept of truth. Our concept of truth will radically affect
our understanding of what it means to become a Christian. We are
concerned at this point, not with the content of truth, so much
as with the concept of truth—what truth is.
Schaeffer’s new ideas became enormously
influential in American evangelicalism, especially among college students
and members of the post-World War II generation. His arguments helped
break down the walls of the “Christian ghetto” and gave
new importance to a Christian understanding of nonreligious vocations,
affirming the significance of a Christian view of reality in every
facet of life. Schaeffer’s impact widened to encompass widely
ranging expressions of Christian thought. John W. Whitehead, founder
and president of The Rutherford Institute, counts himself among those
upon whom Schaeffer’s life and teachings have had a tremendous
influence. Notable personalities who acknowledge the same include
syndicated columnist Cal Thomas; songwriter Larry Norman; religio-political
figures Jerry Falwell and Randall Terry; and scholars Os Guinness
and Chuck Colson.
Though some complained that Schaeffer provided an oversimplified analysis
of Western philosophy, history and art, he provided a stunning view
of the large picture of ideas; a meta-narrative of Western thought
for evangelicals who suddenly began to understand the radical claims
of the truth of Christianity for their world. With the 1973 Roe v.
Wade abortion decision, Schaeffer’s predictions about the implications
of a society based on a material view of reality were realized in
a horrific way. As he had argued, the importance of human life was
foundationally connected to the concept of having been created in
the image of God. And when that view of reality was rejected, the
value of humanity itself became vulnerable to the pragmatic concerns
of a culture consumed with its own hedonism. The abortion issue immediately
became a focal point of Schaeffer’s call to Christian action
as he encouraged the largely apathetic church to evangelize against
it.
John W. Whitehead was present for Schaeffer’s lecture at Notre
Dame in the spring of 1981. For this presentation of “Oldspeak,”
staff writer Joshua Anderson and Rutherford Institute media coordinator
Nisha Mohammed spoke with Whitehead. Their conversation frames a retrospective
look at Schaeffer’s profoundly prescient observations on that
evening 22 years ago in South Bend, Ind. The text of his address—with
only minor edits—appears in italics. The first question and
answer between “Oldspeak” and Whitehead introduces Schaeffer’s
opening remarks. The questions and answers thereafter look back to
that portion of his lecture printed immediately before them.
Oldspeak:
What was the background of Dr. Schaeffer’s speech?
John W. Whitehead: The
lecture was given at Notre Dame University. There was a large audience
composed mainly of educators, academics and lawyers. It was, however,
generally a Christian audience.
What point was this in Dr. Schaeffer’s
career?
J.W.W.: At this point
in time, Francis Schaeffer was one of the most popular evangelicals
in the United States. His book How Should We Then Live?, which was
supplemented by a film series, was a phenomenal success. He had conducted
seminars in connection with the project at churches and Christian
universities all across America. As Schaeffer discussed in this lecture,
he followed that project with the book and film series Whatever Happened
to the Human Race?, which focused on the human life issue—essentially
abortion. This project, however, did not do as well because, as Schaeffer
discovered, when one moves from discussing theory to real “meat
and potatoes” issues, Christians have trouble fully comprehending
them and, thus, getting involved. Schaeffer would soon release his
book A Christian Manifesto, which was a phenomenal bestseller. So,
at the time of this lecture, he had not yet peaked. However, with
A Christian Manifesto—a project I was involved in as the researcher—he
did.
Would people see him as a prophet?
What was it like
at the height of his popularity?
J.W.W.: Schaeffer’s
success hinged on an intellectual approach to Christianity. This type
of approach could be assimilated by a post-’60s audience that
had previously raised important questions about society and government.
Society, unlike today, was not overwhelmingly numbed by the media
onslaught. People were still trying to think.
Schaeffer, as a consequence, became popular during that early ’70s
Christian awakening. Many people—including recent college graduates
who were still thinking—were converting to Christianity at that
time. I was among them.
One reason such an awakening occurred is that people were optimistic
during the ’60s. There was a sense of hope, especially among
the young, that they could change things. However, many of the social
movements of the ’60s had collapsed by the early ’70s,
due in part to the false reliance on drugs as a way to enlightenment.
It was also a time of great turmoil, as evidenced by the Nixon-Watergate
scandal. The entire ’60s counterculture imploded. People were
searching for meaning as well as questioning the concept of reality.
Many then started to seek an answer through Christianity—and
Schaeffer was giving answers.
Indeed, one of Schaeffer’s strong points was his thesis that
one can be a Christian and still think. Christianity, Schaeffer posited,
is in actuality an intellectual religion. It doesn’t have anything
to do with all the superficiality that people had previously associated
with Christianity. That was one reason Schaeffer was accepted. He
was actually saying something different from what was heard in church
or on religious television.
Wasn’t Schaeffer pushing
a sense of activism as well?
J.W.W.: At the time,
there was no activism within evangelicalism. Activism always comes
after a period of education, which Schaeffer was spearheading. In
fact, it wasn’t until publication of Whatever Happened to the
Human Race? that Protestants really became involved in the abortion
issue. Up to that point, it had been a Catholic issue. Schaeffer broke
through the Protestant barrier. And sadly, when Dr. Schaeffer died
in 1984, the movement began collapsing because there was no one of
his stature to carry the torch.
What was the perception of Dr.
Schaeffer in the established church?
J.W.W.: When you’re
popular, virtually everyone jumps on board. But I don’t think
people really understood Schaeffer. To most people, he was more of
a symbol or a persona. His ideas were not like much of the Pablum
that passes for spirituality. Thus, they were not easily assimilated.
The fact that Schaeffer was not well-understood shows today because
it’s difficult to find his books in Christian bookstores. When
I speak to Christian audiences, I often ask how many people have read
a Francis Schaeffer book. Even in large audiences, very few raise
their hands. Sadly, Francis Schaeffer has largely been forgotten.
The basic problem with Christians
in this country in the last 80 years or so, in regard to society
and government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces
instead of in total. They have very gradually become disturbed over
permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown in
the family and, finally, abortion. But they have not seen this as
a total. Each thing is a part—a symptom of a shift from a
worldview that was at least vaguely Christian in memory to a worldview
rooted in the concept that the impersonal material or energy is
the final truth of what is, shaped into its present form by pure
impersonal chance. This is the total from which all these other
things are only the symptoms.
These two worldviews stand as totals in total antithesis to one
another in content and equally totally in antithesis in results—including
sociological and governmental results and very specifically including
the view of law. It is not only that they differ in content, as
in the final of what-is-ness of what is, but that they have mathematically
totally different results. They are different in content, but mathematically
you may be sure they bring forth totally different results.
Why have the Christians been so slow to understand this—that
what we are facing is totals and not just bits and pieces? There
are various reasons, but the central one is a defective view of
Christianity.
Schaeffer mentions a defective
view of Christianity. What exactly does he mean by “a defective
view of Christianity”?
J.W.W.: A defective
view of Christianity is one that does not institute the Lordship of
Christ; that is, the application of Christianity in all areas of life.
This concept has never been practiced very well. There was a much
better application of this doctrine in the early days of this country.
But even then, it was defective in various ways.
We must not forget that Christians were influential in the founding
of this country. Their value system informed the basic institutions
of early American society. However, as we glance at modern society,
it seems that in most areas Christians had no impact at all. A good
example is primetime television, where Christians are not visible
at all. Unfortunately, they have segregated themselves to Sunday morning
or to the religious networks, where mainstream America will not see
or hear them. In this sense, Christian television can be anti-evangelistic.
This is a defective view of Christianity. One reason for this is that
many modern Christians have taken the easy way. They have intentionally
moved to the back of the bus, so to speak, rather than fight for their
rightful place. And some feel comfortable in those slots.
Schaeffer challenged that mentality. He said that if the Lordship
of Christ is viewed properly, one will be on primetime television.
The Christian will be writing books about mathematics, politics, the
law and so on, as Christians did in the past. We’ve forgotten
that great Christians such as Isaac Watts wrote books on various academic
subjects. Although most modern Christians know Watts as only a hymn
writer, he was a great intellectual in his day, as well as a minister.
He was involved in mainstream culture.
Schaeffer targeted the one-dimensional philosophy. That’s why
he argued that modern Christians all too often see Christianity in
bits and pieces and would never see themselves as people who would
speak on philosophy or culture. But many of the early Christians did.
That’s why Jonathan Edwards and the early Christians were so
powerful. Many of the New England Christians who came to America were
intellectuals. They thought and spoke on all areas of life. They assumed
that was what Christianity was all about.
However, modern Christians have roped themselves off and, as a result,
are confined to a tiny part of the total. Unfortunately, many will
never step outside that tiny space because they believe they are simply
a small bit of the total. Schaeffer, however, argued that Christians
are not just a part of the total but can have a tremendous influence
on the total because they supposedly know the infinite God—the
what-is-ness and what-is that is God. The thinking Christian should
possess and/or have access to the basic answers to generally every
area of life. The average Christian, however, generally does not see
reality that way—mainly because he or she is anti-intellectual
and has bought into a false definition of pietism.
Top
“True
spirituality covers nothing less than the totality of life and the
totality of reality.”
Pietism was begun in Germany by Philip
Jacob Spener in the 17th century. It was a healthy thing in many,
many ways in standing against pure formalism in religion and an abstract
concept of Christianity and theology. But it had its poor side in
that it was Platonic. It did not give sufficient place to the intellectual
side of Christianity. It downplayed the intellectual side of Christianity.
Thus, Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a very small area
of life, rather than that of total life. Or to say it another way,
the totality of reality was neglected.
Let me quickly say I am a pietist as far as the concept is concerned—that
there is no such thing as abstract doctrine—but that each doctrine
means something and should mean something in our everyday living.
A doctrine is not to be abstracted from life. In this sense, I am
a pietist. But the poor side of pietism has a result in this Platonic
thinking and outlook, which has been a total tragedy in our Christian
thought and in our Christian life.
True spirituality covers nothing less than the totality of life and
the totality of reality. There are things which the Bible reveals
in terms of absolutes. But aside from these things that the Bible
absolutely says as absolutes, it must be remembered that Christianity
covers all of life—and all of life equally. In this sense, there
is nothing concerning reality which is not to be considered as spiritual.
Related to this is the fact that it seems to me that many Christians
do not mean what I mean when I say that I believe that Christianity
is true. I am sure they are Christians and they believe in the truth
of creation, the truth of the Virgin Birth, of Christ’s miracles,
Christ’s substitutionary death and His coming again. But they
stop there. When I say that Christianity is true—and you must
remember that I come from an agnostic background and became a Christian
merely through my own study when I was quite a young man—when
I say that Christianity is true, I mean it is true to the total reality,
the total of what is, beginning with the central what-is-ness—that
is, the objective existence to the infinite, personal God. To me,
the total of reality shouts—and I am saying shouts—of
the existence of the infinite, personal God. The total of reality
shouts concerning the existence of the infinite, personal God and
then shouts of all that flows from that and is given in the Bible.
Creation, man-made, is unique in the image of God, the historic fall,
redemption and the final restoration.
How did Dr. Schaeffer view the
concept of pietism?
J.W.W.: Much of what
Christians call pietism is simply a refurbished form of Platonism.
The Platonic view is that there is this wide gulf between spirit and
matter. The concept as practiced is that there are certain things
all Christians can be involved in as so-called spiritual things. However,
there are certain things in the material realm that are completely
forbidden, in that the material world is seen as completely tainted
and, thus, evil. Those who hold this view misunderstand true Christianity.
True Christianity holds that spirituality permeates all areas of life.
One, for example, does not have to preach only about the Bible to
be spiritual. There is more to Christianity than that. Christian spirituality
should permeate the entire essence of the individual. Indeed, there
may be nothing more spiritual than going home and wrestling on the
rug with your children and showing them affection. That is what Schaeffer
was saying—you can’t lock spirituality up in a box. That’s
the bits-and-pieces mentality.
What was the American expression
of pietism? Was that the Puritan movement?
J.W.W.: The Puritans
saw a totality but in a more formal sense. They went too far on the
other side. The Puritans were of a post-millenialist mindset. There
was this sense that Christians could take over society by force and
rule. Schaeffer is not saying that; he didn’t believe that.
He believed that if Christianity was applied to all areas of life,
the Christian viewpoint would have an impact.
What this means, however, is that the world around us is not automatically
evil and, conversely, that Christians can be involved in all aspects
of it. There is nothing inherently wrong with television; it’s
just how it is used. Some Christians will not watch television or
read a newspaper. But why not? There is nothing inherently evil because
it is all made by God or assembled from matter created by God. The
tape recorder I am speaking into can be used for evil purposes, but
it can also be used for good purposes as well.
A Platonic view of Christianity eventually evolved into hyper-spirituality.
For the hyper-spiritual Christian, the only so-called spiritual things
are going to church, speaking in tongues, reading the Bible, etc.
But that is a very limited and one-dimensional view of Christianity.
True spirituality embraces all things. A truly spiritual person, Schaeffer
might have said, could be a surgeon, a filmmaker or just someone standing
in front of an abortion clinic picketing against abortion. Each can
be a spiritual act. A true spiritual lawyer will not only take cases
dealing with Christians, he will also take cases dealing with non-Christians.
His entire existence is spiritual. The true Christian will reach out
and help whoever needs help because that is what Christ said was the
purpose of Christianity.
Do you see that happening in
America today? How does this pertain to the current spiritual climate
in our country?
J.W.W.: Much of what
Schaeffer taught has been lost. I first saw this when Christian book
companies started the heavy fiction publishing. And when the fiction
books became popular, especially the ones on the end times, I was
concerned.
First of all, Christians in today’s world of non-absolutes and
non-morality do not need to be living in a fictional world. And second,
much of what goes for Christian fiction is not well-written and is
often penned by ghost writers. Indeed, some publishers have told me
that some of their bestselling fiction books are not written by the
authors listed on the cover of the book. This is deceptive. But my
emphasis here is the escape into reality by soaking one’s mind
with fiction books. And that is exactly what has happened. This goes
back to the defective view of spirituality that Schaeffer was addressing.
In our often chaotic world, it would seem that we need to be focusing
on abortion, cloning, genetic engineering, AIDS, the poor and devastated
and other big problems. This is where Christianity has lost the culture.
Into this void non-Christians have stepped, and they’re practicing
a Christian view on many social issues. Groups that some Christians
would condemn have programs that help the poor. They’re trying
to fight AIDS. They’re doing all these humane and compassionate
things. But the Christians often have not been there. Thus, Christians
have created a vacuum for others to do their work for them and, as
a result, often appear to be irrelevant.
Christian television is an example of where things have gone wrong.
Study any 12 consecutive hours of Christian television programming.
I would challenge anyone to tell me how many real issues are discussed
in those 12 hours—the real issues that I refer to here. This
is also reflected in the anti-intellectualism of many Christians.
This, according to Schaeffer, is where Christians have missed the
boat. While the rest of the world has moved on, many Christians are
working to find ways to compromise with the world. That’s why
they end up imitating it.
The point is that if Christians are truly thinking, they will see
that there is a total reality. And that total reality is God. This
means eschewing the bits-and-pieces mentality. We must see things
in totals. For example, how many Christians look at their children
as possible lawyers, doctors and so on? Many of them are thinking
only of their children in terms of being missionaries living in some
foreign country. That’s fine if that’s what the children
want to do. But again, that’s a bits-and-pieces mentality. Not
every Christian has to be a missionary to serve God. In fact, if we
had fewer missionaries and more good Christian doctors and lawyers,
our world might be a better place because of it.
It seems that one way this works
itself out is by people making “Christian” music and writing
“Christian” books instead of artists who happen to be
Christians making art out of their faith.
J.W.W.: What is Christian
art? I think an atheist can create art with a Christian theme. The
state of what is called Christian art can be seen in the paintings
that are so heavily promoted by some of the large Christian ministries.
There is an appearance of substance. However, when you really look
at these paintings, there isn’t much there. There’s a
painting of a village that glows. But this is not a painting that
depicts reality or real issues. However, at one time in the past Christian
artists like Rembrandt painted real themes, such as the crucifixion
of Christ, His suffering and persecution. We’ve lost those themes
in the modern Christian art found in Christian bookstores. We have
become, as Dr. Schaeffer’s son Frank once noted, “addicted
to mediocrity.” With sweet little paintings on your walls, you
can pretend it’s reality, but it isn’t. Many people who
have these types of paintings on their walls can walk several blocks—or
maybe even next door—and be in the middle of total chaos.
I am also concerned about children growing up in a bits-and-pieces
mentality. What are they being taught? I fear that many of these children
will be living in total unreality. They will not understand what’s
going on in the culture or anything else. Although they may be able
to read well, if they read mediocre, nonintellectual literature, they
will not be able to stand against the tide.
The early Christians who founded the faith were not like that. Take,
for example, the Apostle Paul. There is a reason that most of Paul’s
letters were written from jail cells. He wasn’t a well-liked
person. He wasn’t sweet. He wasn’t brought up on a diet
of Christian comic books. He knew what reality was all about and was
willing to suffer. How many people who grow up watching sweet, happy
Christian videos, such as the ones of singing vegetables, would be
willing to suffer? Are they going to be able to confront reality?
Francis Schaeffer said that it was time to wake up and reinstitute
a True Christianity. He believed that we didn’t have much time
left to recoup the truth, practice it and help our society. Schaeffer
was saying that back in the early ’80s. And now, two decades
later, we’re much worse off. We may have already run out of
time.
As you say, some of the familiar
themes of modern-day Christianity seem escapist in nature. It seems
that people are really buying into the concept of getting away from
reality.
J.W.W.: It is escapism,
and it is epitomized by the end-times books and the movies that were
adapted from them. Something is happening on several levels here.
One is the sad fact that some people who are Christian in name know
there is a market for escapism, and they’re making huge sums
of money from these projects. Many claim they’re publishing
these books as a form of evangelism. But such books do not work well
on that level. And one must ask about the profits from such books.
Where is this money going? Is it going to help the poor? The lame
walk? The oppressed to be free? I doubt it. And second, it furthers
a mentality that is going nowhere.
We must remember that there is another side to spirituality, which
masters in fashioning an endless array of distractions. By Christians
failing to practice a true spirituality and influence their culture
for good, they have given the society over to this opposing spirituality—what
Christians have traditionally called the demonic world. Thus, as a
consequence, most of modern culture consists of distractions such
as entertainment spectacles, sports, shopping malls and the like,
which exist as a method of avoiding reality. And it’s unfortunate
that Christians are not more discerning concerning these distractions.
Indeed, they’re also creating their own distractions, which
in some ways are worse. That’s because they often border on
the sacrilegious, although they seem sweet and harmless. The result
is that Christians are not involved in the real world and, thus, appear
to be irrelevant.
Top
“Christianity
is not a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled
with a capital ‘T.’”
Let me say this in two other ways.
The totality of the reality of what-is necessitates the existence
of the infinite, personal God. It may sound simple. But, in reality,
it is really quite revolutionary, what I have just said. The totality
of the reality of what-is necessitates the existence of God in the
fall and so on. Or, to say it in the second way, there is no explanation
intellectually or in life for what-is except the existence of God
and the fall and so on. We are not left in my thought with probability
arguments but, rather, that reality necessitates the Christian answers.
I wonder if I have made the distinction clear. Christianity is not
a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled with a
capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about
religious things. Christianity, biblical Christianity, is Truth concerning
total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth
and then living in the light of that Truth. And the Truth of what-is
brings forth certain personal, but also certain specific, governmental
and legal results. It brings forth the governmental result and the
legal result, as well as the personal result.
Now go over to the other side. Those that hold the materialistic final
reality concept see the totalness of that which is ending with the
material or energy shaped by pure, impersonal chance. It must be said
in their favor, however, that they saw the totalness of these two
views, the Christian view and their view. They saw the totalness more
quickly than the Christians. You can think of T. H. Huxley and Aldous
Huxley, his grandson, for example, as being a clear example of this.
I must say this is to our shame. They understood the totalness of
the two views standing in antithesis more quickly than the Christian.
And then we must understand that their view also brings forth certain
personal conclusions, but also certain governmental and legal conclusions.
Thus, you have two totals or world-views concerning reality. And they
bring forth mathematically specifically certain personal things, but
also certain things concerning government and certain things concerning
the law.
There is no way to mix these two total entities. It cannot be done,
although liberal theology has tried to do so ever since almost immediately
following the Enlightenment. Of course, in the Enlightenment, the
one view came very much forward and had a great shove forward in our
culture. Liberal theology has tried to mix the two views ever since
immediately following the Enlightenment and has tried to do so right
up to our own day. But in each case, if you will notice, when the
chips are down, the liberal theologian has always come down as naturally
as a ship coming into its home port on the side of the non-religious
humanist.
Humanism, as I am using it, is to be defined as meaning that man is
the measure of all things. Humanism used in this way means man beginning
from himself with no knowledge from outside of himself and no standards
for either personal living or law outside of himself. I would repeat,
man being the measure of all things.
Nowhere have the results of these two total entities been more open
to observation than in government and law. You can look at it in personal
things, permissiveness, sexual permissiveness—all kinds of things.
But really the results of these two total entities are more observable
in government and law than even in the matter of personal life. We
of northern Europe take our form-freedom—and I am going to be
speaking of this now for a little bit, so remember what my subject
is—the form-freedom balance, which we have in our culture. We
of northern Europe take our form-freedom balance for granted, as though
it is natural. But how foolish this is. In regard to either studying
history or even the daily newspaper of most of the world, the form-freedom
balance which we have had in northern Europe since the Reformation
is not natural in the world. Either in the flow of history in the
past, or as we read the daily newspaper of our day. What we have had
for about 400 years is totally abnormal to the normal situation in
the world in regard to any balance of form and freedom. No ancient
culture ever brought forth the form-freedom balance, which we have
enjoyed in northern Europe. And, of course, the United States is an
extension of that culture. And that would include, incidentally, the
Greek city states.
People often say the Greek city-states had this balance. It is not
true. Any of you who have ever read Plato’s Republic will understand
that this is not the idea, and it never took place. The Greek city-states
did not have it. Certainly, no Eastern religion has ever brought it
forth. Never. No Mohammedan culture has ever brought it forth. And
when the men of our State Department after the last war went all over
the world trying to implant our form-freedom concepts downward on
cultures whose philosophy never would have produced it upward, it
has in every case (almost in every case) been a failure and led to
totalitarianism. All you have to do is read the daily newspaper. It
has been a total failure in almost every place where it has been tried
where the philosophic base or the religious base never would have
produced it.
Dr. Schaeffer says that the totality
of the reality of what-is necessitates the existence of the infinite
Christian God, which he says is a revolutionary statement. Could you
explain what he means by that?
J.W.W.: There are differences
among Christians as to whether, by looking at the world around us
and how it operates, it necessitates a belief in a good God. C. S.
Lewis, for example, argued that it is very difficult in a world of
extreme pain, evil and chaos to argue that there is a good God.
Schaeffer, however, argues that our entire existence and the surrounding
world shout to us that God does exist. By looking at nature and how
the universe operates with mathematical progression, it seems to indicate
purpose and, therefore, that someone or something put all that is
around us together by design.
Where does the notion of God come from? Most of us intuitively feel
that something is there, but what is it? The important point Schaeffer
is making is that the totality of the reality is God Himself, which
is the starting point for true Christians.
However, it is here that many Christians diverge from that totality
of the reality of that which is God. They take this awesome being
that is God and make Him a really small thing. This is the God who
hovers around to see if you drink a glass of wine. For many Christians,
God is an angry spirit that is deeply concerned about tiny, meaningless
things. But Schaeffer is saying it’s much bigger than that.
There’s this huge entity out there that we call God. He is so
large and so magnificent that, with just some investigation, one has
to come to the conclusion that there is this awesome spirit that we
call God—and He is good.
Unfortunately, a steady diet of Christian television seems to say
that God is something that can be manipulated—much like the
old mystics and pagans believed—except now it is done with such
things as prayer cloths and oils that a televangelist will send you.
Of course, most likely what these people really want is your address
so they can send you a fundraising letter. However, because of such
propaganda, many people actually believe that receiving a cloth and
a tiny vial of oil from a televangelist will make them feel better
and even heal them. That is illegitimate and unbiblical, but it operates
on massive levels. What such people have done is take this big, beautiful
God—who created the sun, the moon, the universe, the mountains,
the trees and the oceans—and boxed Him up and made him the God
who finds them parking spaces in the shopping malls. This is blasphemy.
When you talk about people boxing
God up and making Him really small, do you see them doing the same
thing with the way the Christian faith is practiced? Has it become
so legalistic now that we have lost the sense of what Jesus Christ
is all about?
J.W.W.: Legalism is
a problem because it falsely limits what Christians can do and, thus,
accomplish. The basic problem is that today’s evangelical establishment,
which controls much of what is called Christian, really doesn’t
place many demands on the average Christian, intellectually or otherwise.
They have so narrowed the options that Christians have and, as a consequence,
made Christianity an easy religion. Is it easier to read the latest
fiction book on the apocalypse or Francis Schaeffer’s The God
Who Is There. And then there are the magic formulae. If you speak
in tongues or do the right things, God will make your marriage better.
If you go to the right seminar or follow the 10 principles of Christian
speakers who mirror popular positive thinkers like Tony Robbins, you’ll
not only feel better about yourself, you’ll also be a success.
This is a form of spiritual manipulation that is really not connected
to true Christianity.
Top
“What
Is a Christian Lawyer?”
Back to pietism again. How did
it develop? Would you say that it’s a reaction to the rationalism
of modernism?
J.W.W.: Pietism, in
my opinion, gained a stronghold in modern evangelicalism as a reaction
to Darwinism. Darwinism had such an impact and became a guiding scientific
principle. It debunked biblical creation and has been a mighty onslaught
on traditional religious faith.
The church at first did not have any answers to Darwin and, as a result,
retreated into a false spiritualism. The church, in effect, dichotomized
reality and became the spiritual side of life—something outside
of science, law and all those things that operate in the material
world. That is Platonism. This was an easy response because 19th century
Christians didn’t really have any answers to Darwinian thinking
as a proposed scientific fact. The creation idea was demolished. It
wasn’t until the early 1950s that a movement called creationism
actually emerged, with scientists who said that evolution is mere
theory and there is evidence of design.
Freudianism also had an impact, especially after World War I. Freud
asserted that God is merely a figment of our human imagination. Freud’s
ideas were very influential and quickly became a mainstay of popular
culture. The church was again taken by surprise and retreated even
further.
The social implication of the Christian retreat is hyper-spirituality.
And even when Christians become lawyers, for example, they still retain
a dichotomized view of reality which makes them socially impotent.
That’s why it was valid for Dr. Schaeffer to ask, “Where
are all the Christian lawyers? Where have you been?” First of
all, there weren’t that many who saw Christianity as a totality.
And many of the so-called Christian lawyers were Platonists. They
were pietistic.
When I first became a Christian, I began attending meetings of Christian
legal groups. The main topic was often, “What Is a Christian
Lawyer?” After several meetings on the same topic, I quit going.
I already knew the answer to the question. Moreover, I could see that
the fabric of society was being ripped apart. So there was no time
to debate such silly questions. The reason The Rutherford Institute
came into being because the Christian lawyers at the time were steeped
in pietism. They were endlessly debating the question, “Should
we or should we not sue?” I went to law school to be a lawyer
so that I would be able to sue. I knew the answer to that question
as well.
This false pietism still predominates today. And it persists because
we have forgotten the Lordship of Christ. Does the Bible apply to
every area of life? And if it does, then why aren’t more Christians
involved in every area of life? Why are there so many Bible colleges
and not more general Christian colleges and universities that teach
all subjects? We’ve forgotten that Harvard, Yale, Princeton
and others were originally Christian schools. Then, during the great
Christian retreat from reality, those schools became bastions of secular
thinking.
A fundamental question Christians have to ask is, “Am I simply
part of a subculture?” If that’s true, then we have a
small God. But is this true? Is the great God of creation involved
in all areas of life? Or is He just the God of a few subculture Christians
huddled in church on Sunday?
The Christian subculture philosophy limits what Christians can accomplish.
Churches can play a major role in reversing this truncated philosophy.
Indeed, if the Christian colleges are not going to effectively educate
a Christian on science, law and philosophy, then the churches need
to. Churches, instead of having endless seminars on the apocalypse,
should have seminars on legal, social and philosophical problems.
They could easily do this because there are materials to use. These
are all the subjects I discuss in my book Grasping for the Wind and
the film series that accompanies it. Some of this can be accomplished
in Sunday school.
Churches could revolutionize this country. Pastors could take the
lead. If every Bible- believing church in this country would have
seminars on law, philosophy and culture and actually teach their people
relevant subject matter, they could revolutionize the culture.
Dr. Schaeffer mentions the concept
of humanism. What is it?
J.W.W.: Humanism is
a philosophy which posits that man can begin from himself without
direct revelation and develop a system of coherent values that provide
worth and dignity for human beings. True Christianity, of course,
presupposes that God is the starting point. God gave us revelations
in writing because He so coordinated the human psyche that we would
read. It’s a question of starting points. The problem, however,
is that many Christians act as if they’re humanists. They approach
many areas of life without reliance on revelation. And that includes
not only so-called liberals but also those who pretend to receive—outside
the Bible—direct revelations from God. This type of activity
is often a staple of Christian television, where the televangelist
receives direct messages from God. In such instances, these types,
in effect, become their own god. And this is little different from
many of the so-called demonic practices they condemn.
Dr. Schaeffer also mentions the
concept of form-freedom balance.
J.W.W.: Form-freedom
balance concerns the structure of society and government and whether
such provides for freedom. Before the Reformation, which stormed over
northern Europe some 400 years ago, there really was no form-freedom
balance. World history is replete with tyrants such as the ruthless
Caesars. And later the European concept of the divine right of kings
became the vogue. This doctrine allowed rulers to spontaneously create
law. If you were to upset the king, it could mean your life.
The Reformation re-emphasized the biblical view of justice in terms
of how people should be treated. If, for example, one follows the
New Testament admonition to love one’s neighbor as oneself—and
this also applies to the king—the king cannot be arbitrary.
He, too, is held to a standard. Thus, the focus gradually shifted
from authoritarianism in either government or the church toward the
dignity, value and worth of people.
The shift, of course, did not happen overnight. It took many years
to evolve. But it began with the Reformation principle of sola scriptura—that
is, the Bible as the ultimate source, not a king or a pope. This meant
that kings were not to be the arbiters of rights. It also meant that
priests were not the only ones who could interpret or read the Bible—the
average person could do so as well.
We forget that Christ was a classical liberal. For example, He held
a revolutionary view of women. He treated them as equals. As the New
Testament became readily accessible to the populace, it eventually
gave birth to the way women are treated today. There are revolutionary
principles in the New Testament. However, virtually no one other than
establishment authorities knew about them until the Reformation. Martin
Luther and other Reformation leaders broke down the previous barriers.
This means that form (or structure) gave way to more freedom.
By the time of Samuel Rutherford, these Reformation principles were
taking concrete form. You can see this in Rutherford’s book
Lex, Rex, where he argues that everyone is under the authority of
the Bible, even kings and priests. This is an attempt to strike a
form-freedom balance. And within the form-freedom balance, as presented
by the Reformation leaders, there are astounding principles. For example,
if only priests could talk to God, they had a special relationship
with God. But if everyone could talk to God, then everyone had this
special relationship, and it allowed for freedom for the average person.
This created a revolution in people’s minds.
One of the most important principles was a concept advocated by Martin
Luther, and it revolutionized how we visualize form and freedom. That
was the liberty of conscience. Everyone, argued Luther, had the right
to read the Bible; everyone had the right to believe in God; everyone
had liberty of conscience to believe as he or she saw fit. This was
the genesis of the concept of individual freedom. It meant that the
average person had as much right to speak and think as the king did.
This was an attack on authoritarian structures ruling over people
as if they were property, and it would eventually undermine the institution
of slavery.
These Reformation principles, which were brought from Europe, flowed
into the new world that became the United States. However, they were
not put into action perfectly. Christianity, it must be remembered,
has never been practiced perfectly. When its principles have been
practiced partly or substantially, however, it has had a beneficial
impact. The Puritans, for example, had a sense of these principles,
but they over-emphasized form.
By the time of the American Revolution, these principles had filtered
into the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence
clearly argues for a form-freedom balance in that because God grants
freedoms government cannot abrogate them. That is an extension of
Reformation thinking. In other words, our founding documents did not
spring from a vacuum. Their origin is from northern Europe and the
Reformation. And in the American Constitution, we have a nearly perfect
statement of the form-freedom concept.
Top
“We
live in a secularized society and in a secularized sociological time
of law.”
The founding fathers in the United
States understood this in varying degrees. John Witherspoon, for example,
who lived from 1723 to 1794, understood it. He has always been very
important to me. [His work as president of the College of New Jersey,
which is now Princeton University], his work in regard to the Declaration
of Independence and his work on the countless committees which were
functioning at the time of the formation of the United States government,
these things were not unrelated. What he stood for as president of
the College of New Jersey and his work on the Declaration and then
these other things had a total relationship. He knew and stood consciously
in the stream coming from Samuel Rutherford, who lived from 1600 to
1661. That stream flowed from Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex.
Most people in this country no longer remember Lex, Rex. But people
like Witherspoon and others who founded this country really understood
Lex, Rex and what it represented—and understood it very well.
Thomas Jefferson, of course, was a deist, as well as others. They
might have known something more or less about Samuel Rutherford’s
work. But one thing they certainly did know, and that was that they
stood in the stream of Locke. Locke, of course, lived from 1632 to
1704. In examining Locke, what you find is that he had consciously
secularized Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex; that is, law is king.
He knew what he had done. He reached back and took Samuel Rutherford’s
Lex, Rex and secularized it. But all the intrinsic parts were there,
even though it did not have that firm basis which Samuel Rutherford
had as he wrote Lex, Rex.
The men who formed the United States in those days from the original
13 states knew very specifically and consciously what they were doing.
Let me give you some phrases. Certain “inalienable rights.”
They knew what they were doing. Inalienable rights. Where do inalienable
rights come from? Not out of irrelativism, surely. Certain inalienable
rights. “In God We Trust” soon marched along, along with
the previous statement. There was a paid chaplain functioning for
the United States Congress before the war was even finished. I wonder
if you realize that. And the first Thanksgiving Day was called in
order to say thank you to God for the winning of war. These men really
knew what they were doing, and they consciously understood the basis
of the government which they had established. Also, we must remember
that the earlier provincial congresses and the various states—in
every single one, they opened with prayer. From the beginning of the
United States Congress after it was formed, it always opened with
prayer.
These men understood the base upon which they were functioning,
and they understood it very, very well indeed. They knew they were
building upon the concept of a Supreme Being. And not a vague concept
either, but one which could be called in some general way—even
with a deist—to be rooted back into the Judeo-Christian memory.
This is a concept not just of a far-off, distant God but of a creator
who is the final reality. And without this concept, these men understood
that when they were writing about certain inalienable rights, it would
be absolute nonsense. Total nonsense, except the basis upon which
they were consciously and very intelligently functioning.
Witherspoon’s sermon on that first Thanksgiving Day shows their
perspective. As he said, “A republic once equally poised must
either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” That was the
crux of his first Thanksgiving service immediately after the war was
won. In an earlier speech, we find Witherspoon saying, “He is
the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
in promoting pure and undefiled religion.” This is Witherspoon,
signer of the Declaration of Independence.
The First Amendment was only for a specific purpose—that
there would be no established church for the united 13 colonies or
states. That was its basic purpose. As a matter of fact, there were
individual states at that time that had state churches. And even this
was not considered to be in conflict with the purpose of the First
Amendment. To have suggested a viable state separated from religion—which
at times meant a general concept of Christianity—to suggest
a viable state to these original men separated from religious influence
would have utterly amazed them. They would have never thought about
it, so deeply rooted were they in the concepts upon which they were
building and the streams of Samuel Rutherford and John Locke, which
were their foundation. The founding fathers would have been amazed
at this concept.
William Blackstone and his input are all in the same direction.
What we find is that for him there were two foundations for law—nature
and revelation. And he spelled out what he meant by revelation when
he spoke of “the divine law found only in the Holy Scripture.”
That is what Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries. We must say that
until the takeover of government and law in our country by the total
other entity—the materialistic, humanistic one with the chance
syndrome—not to have mastered Blackstone’s Commentaries
would have meant you would not have graduated from law school. You
just would have not graduated, so deeply was Blackstone rooted in
American law until the relatively recent past. And now it’s
all gone. Not partly gone. All gone.
We live in a secularized society and in a secularized sociological
time of law. What is sociological law? Sociological law means you
do not function on any real solid base or absolutes. Instead, you
only deal upon that which a small group of people decide is for the
sociological good of the people as a whole at that given moment. That’s
sociological law. That isn’t my own definition. If you read
some of the men in the Supreme Court—Oliver Wendell Holmes and
so on—you find this concept was very much put forward. It’s
a very conscious concept. It’s true, of course, that the rulings
concerning Mormonism had an impact in the shift of American law. The
laws that followed the Civil War and the southern states rejoining
the Union had a certain impact upon the change of law. But this is
not the basic reason for the change of law in this country. Rather,
it is the takeover by the totally other philosophy which would never
have given the form and freedom which we take for granted in the first
place. It would never have given it. Now it has taken over our form
of law. And the form and freedom which we have taken for granted is
so shaky, isn’t it?
And there are so many problems. The form and freedom which we
have had in northern Europe since the Reformation, this rested upon
that base. And with the other totality, the other entity taking over,
the base is now the consensus. The materialistic, relativistic, humanistic
one. This form and freedom, which we have taken so for granted, suddenly
we look up and we find it is shaken to the core. So why should we
be surprised? These two totalities of which I have spoken mathematically
bring forth certain results not only in personal lives but in government
and law. We should have not at all been surprised at what has happened.
Did the American founders have
a real vision for freedom, as based on Christianity?
J.W.W.: Many of those
who drafted the founding documents were obviously influenced by Christianity.
And many others secularized the Christian vision. John Locke, who
was a strong influence on some of the founders, secularized Christian
principles. But that’s not all bad. For example, a man who is
an atheist and practices the principle of loving your neighbor as
well as yourself is operating from a Christian base, although he may
not know it.
The Declaration of Independence, which is really the founding document
of the United States, not the Constitution, is very clearly a document
infused with Christian theism. It states very clearly that the rights
of people originate in God and these rights are inalienable and absolute.
This is important to form-freedom balance. In other words, if there
are certain absolute rights that the government cannot abrogate —
such as the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
as clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence — there
is form-freedom balance. The state does not have total authority.
The individual does not have total authority. The individual is under
some kind of a structure, but within that structure he or she has
freedom — something, by the way, that we are losing today in
America.
Thus, would it be fair to say
that the freedoms Americans enjoy today came from a religious foundation?
J.W.W.: They came not
merely from a religious foundation, but specifically from a Judeo-Christian
base. Without this base, there is no form-freedom balance.
Therefore, the founding fathers
saw no conflict between affirming Christian beliefs and holding intellectual
freedom at the same time?
J.W.W.: No, they saw
it as a way of obtaining freedom. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, who was
not a Christian, said that the morals of Christ were the most sublime
principles ever taught. While he was president of the United States,
he translated the New Testament from the Greek. From that, Jefferson
developed a set of principles derived from the teachings of Christ
called the “Jefferson Bible.” From there, Jefferson argued
for an aristocracy of virtue. What virtue was he talking about? A
Christian virtue, of course. He believed that if one operated from
the basic principles taught by Christ, one could have a very adequate
form-freedom balance. But without this, there is no such thing because
there is no concept of individual rights. It means that the worth
and dignity of the individual is not respected.
You will not find such principles in other religions. And you will
not find them in countries that are not influenced by the Judeo-Christian
thought form. Thus, the individual will find himself under an authoritarian
structure that will, at times, persecute him. This, for example, is
what we have in countries such as China today. It is what once existed
in the old Soviet Union. These are totally authoritarian governments
that have no respect for the rights of people. However, if you could
institute Christian principles into such governmental structures over
a period of time, you would see a more improved form-freedom balance.
In China today, there is intense religious persecution by the government.
This arises from a great fear of what Christianity has to say to authoritarian
structures. Otherwise, why would the Chinese government put so much
emphasis on persecuting Christians? There is also the troublesome
waning of the form-freedom balance in the United States. Gradually,
individual freedom is even being attacked in this country. And that
will increase. But it also explains why the American government supports
various authoritarian regimes, including the Chinese government. The
United States financially supports the Chinese regime to commit terrorism
against its own citizens.
True Christians—those willing to die for the faith—have
always been a threat to authoritarian regimes. We must remember that
the Christians in Rome were not persecuted because the state was opposed
to them being Christians. The Roman government simply wanted to force
the Christians to worship and pray not only to Christ but to Caesar
as well. The early Christians refused to do that and, as a result,
were considered rebels. Thus, it was a political offense. The Romans
didn’t see this refusal as a religious offense, but a political
offense against the state. The Christians were committing treason
in their eyes. That’s why the Romans persecuted them—the
Christians were political rebels. Unfortunately, you don’t see
many Christian rebels today, especially in the West, and more so in
the United States.
How successful were the Founding
Fathers in implementing the form-freedom balance?
J.W.W.: They were successful
in the beginning. However, as with everything else in a fallen world,
the form-freedom balance has deteriorated. That’s why Thomas
Jefferson said that we need a revolution every 20 years. He was not
talking about violently overthrowing the government. He was speaking
about reformulating the government structures to maintain a proper
form-freedom balance.
Dr. Schaeffer mentions two competing
worldviews. One is materialistic and the other is spiritual. What
are the implications of us now moving into a place where laws are
not based on a spiritual reality but on materialistic values?
J.W.W.: We are now a
materialistic culture. Sadly, the Christians have basically fallen
in line with the direction of the materialism. You can see this with
the opulent churches and the expensive way many establishment Christians
live. This is the antithesis of how Christ lived. Christ fed the poor.
He reached out to the common person. He had little earthly material
wealth. Again, Christ is juxtaposed to modern opulent Christendom.
Modern Christianity, as such, has little involvement with and makes
few demands on the culture. Thus, the Christian impact is very minimal.
That is why the culture is sloughing off Christianity. The ramifications
of this are a waning form-freedom balance. As a consequence, we are
going to see more top-down laws, more top-down oppression from the
major institutions of society. This can be clearly seen in the public
schools which today, with the help of the courts, have eradicated
the Christian faith from within the system. Add to this the fact that,
in the schools, such things as zero tolerance policies have become
draconian.
We are moving into a police state in America because we have discarded
the old form-freedom balance in favor of authoritarian structures.
Our culture has been sucked into the vacuum of Darwinism. And now
we assume that people are just machines or animals.
This philosophy, in various guises, is taught in the public schools
and universities. People generally act out what they’re taught
in school. And once they’re taught a materialistic philosophy—one
that eschews freedom in favor of form—perceived acts of rebellion
will be punished very heavily, even if there is no intention of violating
certain rules. For example, in some schools when a child comes out
of the bathroom and his shirt is not tucked in, such mistakes are
punished as if they were crimes. Thus, the end product of forsaking
the form-freedom balance is total authoritarianism.
There is no need for a theocracy or anything close to it to maintain
the form-freedom balance. The need is for Judeo-Christian principles
to be consistently practiced in all walks of life or they are useless.
For our president to say “God bless you” at the end of
a speech does absolutely no good if it is merely seen as nothing more
than a nice way to end things. If we really mean it when we say such
things, then we will work for freedom, truth and justice. We will
practice what we preach, so to speak. For example, schools cannot
be totally secularized and expect freedom to flourish there. Once
God is put in a box, man is put in a box. And once in a box, people
cannot escape. They’re controlled. And that is what we’re
seeing today.
Top
“Where
have the Christian lawyers been?”
Now I have a question. In these shifts
that have come in law, where have the Christian lawyers been? I really
ask you that. The shift has come gradually, but it has only come to
its peak in the last 40 or 50 years. Where have the Christian lawyers
been? Surely the Christian lawyers should have been the ones to have
sounded the trumpet clear and loud, not just in bits and pieces but
looking at the totality of what was occurring. Now, a nonlawyer like
myself believes I have a right to feel let down by the Christian lawyers.
When I wrote How Should We Then Live?, between 1974 and 1976, when
I began at that time in that book to deal with the Lordship of Christ
and the whole of life in dealing with law and government (as my previous
books had dealt with the Lordship of Christ and the whole of life
dealing with culture and with intellectual things), when I began working
over that and I looked around, I found as far as I know—now
I am not saying that it didn’t exist but I never did find it—I
found no book and no articles explaining or even calling attention
to the total shift and how far we were already down the road. I would
say that John Whitehead’s new book, The Second American Revolution,
does much to fill that gap. But when I started back there with “How
Should We Then Live?, I began to work from the side of secular philosophy,
which was my field and which I understood very well. I began to work
from the side looking at liberal theology and its relationship to
the secular philosophy. [From looking at the arts,] I turned to look
at the courts and especially the U.S. Supreme Court. I read Oliver
Wendell Holmes. I read Vincent and others, and I was totally appalled
because I was finding in what was written—first by what they
said and then by the rulings of the courts—exactly what I had
been struggling with in secular philosophy, existential philosophy
and all these other things in the cultural realm. I turned from understanding
it in these other fields to American law and to the rulings of the
courts and especially the Supreme Court. And I found it exactly parallel.
In How Should We Then Live? I used
Roe v. Wade, the abortion case, as the clearest illustration that
I knew of arbitrary sociological law—arbitrary both medically
and legally. But it was only the clearest illustration. Many other
illustrations could have been given, but it was the clearest. And
that is why I used it as my key point in How Should We Then Live?
But in considering that it is as clear that the law has become that
which is relativistic, just as let us say that in Joseph Fletcher’s
situational ethics, he exhibits the general relativism of the ethics
of our total culture. So as I look at Fletcher—he is an extreme
example of the entire relativism that has come into our general ethics.
I look at the Court, and I look at the abortion ruling, and I find
a clear illustration of something that is the mentality of most of
the Court—law has become situational law. But, of course, these
things are the natural mathematical results of the materialistic energy
humanist concept of reality.
When I talk of these things, they are not philosophical abstractions.
When I speak of origins, these origins will determine where everything
in my thinking turns out. If I begin with the origin of the infinite,
personal God, the Judeo-Christian religion, then I find that there
are natural results from that in personal life, but also in law and
government. When I turn to the other side, I begin with the impersonal
concept of the final what-is-ness being only impersonal material or
energy shaped only by impersonal chance. Mathematically, it will also
come to natural conclusions concerning personal values, situational
values and situation and sociological law and sociological government.
In all of this, the Christians in the legal profession had not rung
the bell. And we are indeed way down the road toward now a totally
humanistic culture, with law—and especially the courts—being
the vehicle to force this on the population and its practice. We are
a long, long way down the road.
For your comfort perhaps, neither have the Bible-believing theologians
been very good at horn-blowing. It isn’t only the Christian
lawyers. In 1893, Dr. Charles A. Briggs had been put out of the Presbyterian
ministry because of his teaching liberal, rationalistic theology in
Union Theological Seminary. I just say in passing that liberal theology
is only humanism using theological terms instead of philosophical
terms. Then, after that, there was a tremendous and great silence
until about the 1920s and 1930s when it was too late and most of the
old-line denominations had become dominated at the two power centers
of the bureaucracy and of the seminaries. By then, when voices were
raised, with rare exceptions it was too late. What I am saying is
the Bible-believing theologians didn’t seem to understand much
better than the Bible- believing lawyers that we were dealing with
totals and not just bits and pieces. Thus, the theologians did no
better in seeing the shift from one total worldview concerning reality
to the other total worldview concerning reality. And I must say the
Christian educators didn’t do very well, either.
Where have the Christian professionals
and academics been? Where have the Christians been in general while
this cultural shift was happening?
J.W.W.: Instead of seeing
things in totals, as in the Lordship of Christ, the evangelical world
has opted for a hyper-spiritual religion. Thus, their faith was not
integrated into a cohesive Christian worldview.
The Lordship of Christ has to be taught to people in order for them
to exercise it effectively. This should be repeatedly taught in the
churches. It is not. Christians need to be encouraged to become involved
in every area of life. Go out and do good works; get involved with
AIDS clinics; get involved with your local government and school system.
To be an effective Christian, one does not have to force one’s
values on other people. Simply get involved. This is practicing the
Lordship of Christ.
We forget that Christ teaches in Matthew 5:13 that Christians are
to be the salt or preservative in society. This is a normative statement,
not something that Christians should do. Christ said that true Christians
are logically and naturally the ingredient that preserves society.
Thus, if you are a true Christian, you will act as a preservative
on society. This means that wherever one is involved in society, that
person should have a positive, curative effect. To do this, you don’t
have to have the Bible under your arm all the time. You don’t
have to preach. Just practicing the principles of Christ will have
an impact.
However, to be what Christ expects of Christians means they have to
be involved in the workings of society, not act as if they are inferior
subjects to the crown. This means running for office or whatever can
be legitimately done. Practice the principles. The fact is that most
Christians still see things in bits and pieces. They’ve taken
the easy way out. They’ve been beguiled by the spirit of the
age and have become materialistic. And when that happens, it stifles
the true spirit. And this shows in the minimal impact that modern
evangelicalism has on the society around it.
Top
“We
must stop seeing things in bits and pieces.”
But while I may spread around the
problem a bit, it does not help us today except to realize that if
we are going to do better in the future than we have in the past,
we must stop seeing things in bits and pieces. We must come to understand
that it is one total opposed to the odious other total concerning
total truth regarding total reality—not just religious reality
but total reality. And to join the battle today with any intelligence,
we must understand that what we are facing is not just a question
of religious truth. It is not a stand only finally upon freedom, and
not only upon my freedom. Eventually it is one question of truth against
another concept of total reality, and these things stand in total
antithesis. If we are going to do better in the future than we have
in the past, this must be a deep comprehension not only in our minds
but in our stomachs.
We live in a democracy/republic, which was born out of the Christian
base and which is increasingly rare in the world today. The United
Nations says that out of the 150 or some nations that exist today
in the world, less than 25 have any real freedoms. What we take for
granted is exceedingly rare in the world today. When we have this
freedom, we must use it. We must use it while we have it. Now some
of us may have questions about some of the things, for example, done
by the Moral Majority and what is stood for and what is said. But
I would say if you are going to have questions, get your information
from some other place than the media that also has the same presuppositions
that the rest of the culture has. Don’t expect objectivity from
this in these questions. Why would they be objective? They aren’t
telling lies. They are seeing it through a total perspective on the
materialistic, rationalistic, humanistic, relativistic, socialized
world-view. So think things through very carefully on judgment, and
do not just take blindly the statements of a media that have exactly
the same perspective that you find in law and the government and in
much of education and all the rest. Otherwise, you are really not
educated people. You are just sponges.
We must realize that if the Moral Majority does not suit some of you,
then I would say we must at least say that they have to some real
extent met the problem and used the freedom which we have in the political
arena today to stand with some consistency against the other total
entity. They really have. And what we must say is if you can do better,
do it. But what we must not do is cut the ground from under each other
when we enter the political arena, which is a part of true spirituality.
We must get that very firmly fastened in our thinking.
This brings me to the evangelical leadership in this country. They
haven’t been much help in these things either, I would say.
They have also shown the marks of a Platonic Christianity all too
often. Spirituality has not included the Lordship of Christ over the
whole spectrum of life and much of the evangelical leadership. Spirituality
is being shut up to a very narrow area. And also it seems that very
often the main concern is not to rock the boat in regard to the individual’s
personal projects. No. We can say with tears, as we say there is lots
of room for blame, that the evangelical leadership has not been much
help in this area.
Often it seems the evangelicals of
our own day have forgotten the whole revivals and what the old revivals
brought forth. The old revivals called for a personal salvation, true
enough. However, they also resulted in social action. Think of Wesley.
Think of Whitefield. There are many British secular historians who
say that it was the revivals of John Wesley and George Whitefield
and the social changes they brought which saved England from its own
form of the French Revolution. And I must say I think history proves
that judgment right. Think of Jasper and William Wilberforce. It makes
you proud to be a Christian just to name the names if you know what
they stood for against great and terrible odds, what results God brought
forth from these people. I was very interested in reading a recent
book by Jeremy Rifkin, the counterculture man. It is called Entropy.
In it, Rifkin shows that he understands that these revivals really
called for something not just in personal relationships (which he,
of course, does not believe in) to God but in the social areas. He
understands this better than many of our evangelical leaders have
understood what the old revivals brought forth. In passing, I can
also say that he quoted largely in his book from my book Pollution
and the Death of Man: A Christian View of Ecology. It shows that he
understands that there is a Christian view which has something to
say about the great problems of ecology, as well as those social actions
as brought forth by the old revivals.
Even closer to hand, who remembers
Jonathan Blanchard, the founder of Wheaton College? He was one of
the leaders who fought against slavery. Who remembers Charles Finney?
He is usually thought of as the great evangelist. But who remembers
that Finney did exactly the same thing at Overland College that Blanchard
did at Wheaton? He called for real change in the social world. Both
of them set down for the students, and for anyone who would hear,
that when a law is wrong, it is wrong. And they called for civil disobedience.
That’s Blanchard. And that’s Finney. These men really
had a rich Christianity—a Christianity that they understood
the Lordship of Christ extended across all of life. You cannot say
Jesus is Savior without saying He is Lord. And He is not just Lord
of the religious life but of the totality of life as well.
Let me come back to the weakness of much of the evangelical leadership
in these areas. When Whatever Happened to the Human Race? came out,
it was very instructive to stress the Lordship of Christ over the
whole area of life in regard to the legal issue, even the legal issue
of human life. We found as we brought out Whatever Happened to the
Human Race? that it was not always wildly accepted. The seminars were
marvelous. The people went away moved and committed. And without any
question, the book, the film and the seminars had a definite part
in stirring many Christians to do something about human life for the
very first time. Now many of the evangelicals indeed have taken their
place where before it was largely the Roman Catholics and the Mormons.
We are thankful for the results of the book, the film and the seminars.
These seminars, however, I would tell you, were not as well attended
as the previous seminars of How Should We Then Live? Why? Because
much of the evangelical leadership didn’t want the boat rocked.
And not only did they not urge people to come but—in certain
cases—they hindered their coming.
Dr. Schaeffer notes that in 1981,
out of the 150 countries in the world at that time, only 25 had freedom.
Obviously, that has changed in the last 20 years with the fall of
the Soviet Union and other communist governments. But has it really
changed?
J.W.W.: There have been
some changes, but not all of them are positive. China’s evil
empire still exists. Regimes still exist. Look at North Korea and
the authoritarian governments in Middle Eastern countries. Remnants
of the KGB still operate in the former Soviet Union. Totalitarian
regimes exist all over the world. Most people living in these countries
do not understand the concept of freedom upon which we in the West
base our lives. Since they have never been exposed to the concept
of form-freedom balance, then living as a worm under some tyrant seems
normal.
Since the fall of communism,
therefore, democracy hasn’t fulfilled what it claimed it would
do.
J.W.W.: The important
issue raised by Dr. Schaeffer is that democracy cannot be implanted
in other cultures—something the United States is futilely trying
to do in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. It took several hundred
years for democracy to emerge after the form-freedom seeds were planted
in the United States. But although it takes time, it also takes teaching.
It takes Judeo-Christian principles being taught. Thus, democracy
is not going to flourish all over the world. That’s the bottom
line. Unfortunately, it is an illusion perpetrated by the U.S. government.
For all the money Christians in the United States have spent on programs,
for all the missions, they have been ineffectual. They simply do not
understand what their faith means or how it should be applied to everyday
life. And they have not translated the principles to the general populace.
Thus, the principle of the Lordship of Christ has been lost. The present
evangelical mentality of “plucking people out of the fire”
doesn’t work. Even if they are plucked free of something, they
will see life in bits and pieces, and their impact will be minimal.
And that’s the tragedy of modern evangelicalism.
Dr. Schaeffer mentions the Moral
Majority. How does that relate to what he is talking about?
J.W.W.: The Moral Majority
was a moral watch group created by Jerry Falwell. It had chapters
in many states and for a while acted as a lightning rod for the Right.
It was similar to the Christian Coalition. The idea, I assume, was
to activate Christians. Dr. Schaeffer discussed the Moral Majority
with me. He believed that if Falwell could stay focused and not go
off on tangents, the group might do some good. And what he said in
his speech was right. At least they were doing something. But many
evangelicals attacked the Moral Majority. Much of this stemmed from
the fact that Falwell was embarrassing them by attempting to put his
faith into action. This is something the larger evangelical movement
had failed to do. So they threw stones at him. Occasionally, it seemed
that Falwell was doing some strange things. But Dr. Schaeffer was
saying that at least the Moral Majority was a moving target. It wasn’t
perfect, though, and it didn’t last. However, that’s another
trait we see in Christian movements. Christians are prone to fads
and, thus, the movements do not last.
Why don’t the movements
last?
J.W.W.: The foundations
are weak. Christians don’t have a great “stick-to-it-tiveness.”
We saw that with Promise Keepers. Evangelicals have, to use their
lingo, “gone the way of the world.” They are, as I’ve
said, prone to fads.
Unfortunately, this was the way it was with the abortion movement,
which was something many evangelicals became involved with for a few
years. There was a lot of picketing at abortion clinics. Operation
Rescue conducted sit-ins. But all that has totally faded now. There
are very few evangelicals actively fighting abortion. In fact, the
movement, if you can call it that, has gone inside, where the pro-choice
movement wants it to be. The in-thing now is crisis pregnancy centers,
which, by the way, do good work. However, the frontline fighting for
life has been replaced with the easier act of fundraising banquets
for the centers. Crisis pregnancy centers, though, should not be the
only focus. Another should be more proactive, much like those who
work for better stewardship of the Earth. The environmentalists understand
that being more visible and proactive can be very effective. That
is why they receive so much media attention. When was the last time
you heard anything in the news about a protest against abortion? But
then again, how many Christians can you actually get out on the streets
to picket at an abortion clinic or walk by, ride by or even honk their
horn and say, “I love babies. Stop killing them!”? Christians
are not active because they see things in bits and pieces, not totals.
As a consequence, the strength of the movement has been lost. And
sadly, unborn babies are suffering for the evangelicals’ failure.
Dr. Schaeffer mentions John Wesley,
George Whitefield and William Wilberforce. These 18th century Christians
made great social impacts. What distinguishes them from today’s
Christians?
J.W.W.: They understood
the Lordship of Christ. Wilberforce was amazing. He spent many years
arguing against slavery in the British Parliament. He was persistent.
He would not relent. And because of Wilberforce, slavery was finally
outlawed in Great Britain.
These men were full-orbed Christians, unlike what it is to be a Christian
today. Isaac Watts is an example. As I noted earlier, he wasn’t
simply a minister. He was a scholar and wrote on various academic
subjects. And he wrote music. That’s how Christians used to
see themselves. Unfortunately, they don’t today. Your average
Bible college will not teach the subjects in which these men were
fluent. Modern Christians are one-dimensional because of the bits-and-pieces
mentality.
One reason those great Christians of the past were effective was that
they possessed intellectual depth. Very few evangelical leaders today
have an intellectual depth. They may have huge ministries and huge
buildings, but for all the millions of dollars they spend on Christian
television and Christian ministries, not one of these groups has had
the impact that William Wilberforce had. With all the millions of
dollars evangelical ministries have, why does modern society continuously
cast off Christian values? What are they doing wrong? They have become
one-dimensional and have accepted what society wants them to be—that
is, just another subculture. And such churches seem satisfied as long
as the secular culture leaves them alone, which, by the way, is usually
the case. In the process, they have lost any spiritual vitality. True
spirituality has great power. But modern evangelical Christians have
little power and, thus, little impact. They have, so to speak, given
away their spiritual birthright for a bowl of porridge.
Top
“The
issue is not abortion but the low view of human life.”
The unique dignity of human life
is unbreakably linked to the existence of the infinite, personal God.
I would repeat: There is a unique linkage between the concept of the
dignity of human life and the existence of the infinite, personal
God of the Judeo-Christian religion. Where this view has not been
held, there has not been a high view of human life. Think of India.
Think of the Muslim countries. Think of others. But let me say this
to you with great warning: As our country and our western European
culture lose the concept of man being unique as made in the image
of God, we are losing the concept of the dignity of human life as
well. The abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was not the really important
thing, although it was important, tremendously important. Yet, nevertheless,
that wasn’t the real important thing. The abortion decision
was only a symptom of a low view of human life, which would have been
unthinkable in the day when there was a Christian consensus in this
country. It would have been totally unthinkable.
The high view of human life that we have taken for granted cannot
be held on the basis of the other total entity of a materialistic
what-is-ness; that is, the final reality formed only by an impersonal
chance. Abortion is important, but it is only a symptom. To fail to
see this is a part of the bits-and-pieces mentality of which I have
been speaking. And as the materialistic, humanistic worldview takes
over in our country, mathematically we can be sure that the high view
of human life will decrease and decrease and decrease. There is a
natural sequence between the abortion concept, the infanticide concept
of letting the baby die after it is born. And that concept was put
forth by a liberal theologian recently that a baby is not to be considered
really human until a certain number of days after it is born. Think
that one over for a while. The euthanasia of the old. These things
are not isolated issues. And we as Christians, if we are intelligent
about these things, should not be taken by surprise at all if they
flow along as naturally as a flowing stream. The issue is not abortion
but the low view of human life, which is a natural result of the other
total entity. The lack of understanding this, I would repeat, is a
clear example of not seeing the totals but only looking at the bits
and pieces of what was being lost.
Schaeffer mentions that the unique
dignity of life is unbreakably linked to the existence of the infinite
Creator God. Could you briefly explain just why that is?
J.W.W.: No one really
knows why God endowed people with certain attributes and a spiritual
identity. However, what Schaeffer is stressing here is a principle
that was central to the Reformation—that is, God has endowed
man with a special grace. As a result, people have reflective attributes
of the Creator and can in some way communicate to God.
Why is this primarily found in
Judeo-Christian thinking?
J.W.W.: First, one must
ask why God-endowed attributes are so important. The simple answer
is that they make man different from a tree, a snail or an ape. They
make human beings special. You will not find this concept emphasized
in Hinduism, for example, because it is steeped in Pantheism. Pantheism
holds that human beings, along with everything else, are part of the
same chain of existence. We are all one, so to speak. And, thus, we
are all part of one big matrix, which is God. In the end, we are all
parts of plants and animals. God, therefore, is part of the plants
as well.
Christianity teaches an entirely different principle—that God
is separate from His creation. God is not really part of the plant.
God is different. And because human beings alone in the creation have
reflective attributes of God people are special. We are not reduced
to the level of a slug, a dog, a cat or an ape.
That principle benefits people in other areas of life, including the
political. In the last 400 years since the Reformation, it has played
itself out by granting human rights and affording people worth and
dignity. This principle was infused into all American laws and documents
(including the Constitution). The Declaration of Independence specifically
asserts that man has a special relationship to God. It has its origination
in New Testament principles.
The principle of God-endowment is so important because it protects
people from mistreatment at the hands of other humans individually
and as collectively gathered in the state. This translates into various
freedoms and rights. For example, one cannot be executed without a
fair trial. People, as such, are not to be treated as if they are
animals and have no rights.
There is still enough of the Judeo-Christian memory in this country
that government authorities are brought to task for violating our
rights. That’s why the God-endowment principle is so important.
And, as I said, it has tremendous ramifications politically, legally
and culturally on how we treat people. All people are created equal,
proclaims the Declaration of Independence. They are endowed with the
absolute rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This
principle comes from Judeo-Christian theism.
Dr. Schaeffer notes that the
abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was not as important as the symptoms
of what it represented. What does he mean by that?
J.W.W.: Roe v. Wade is a reflection
of the shift that had taken place in society in the 20th century.
This was, however, a spill-over from the mid-19th century. It was
then that Darwinism began to take shape. Darwinism was a signal that
things were going to change. It was clothed in science, and the church
had no answer to it. As such, Darwinism became the predominant thought
form in how to view all of life, including human life. Eventually,
Darwinism became an integral part of not only science but government
and law as well. Indeed, the entire culture swallowed Darwinism whole.
Many of the classic jurists, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, consumed
Darwin and used it as a way to view the law. And all of a sudden,
laws were also seen as evolving. But the crunch is that if law is
evolving, who is to say what the law is? Law cannot be seen as fixed
in a document such as the Constitution, since it is evolving as well.
This means that the judges, as they speak for the courts, become philosopher
kings. Thus, the judges say what the law is. Therefore, now the Supreme
Court, instead of relying on the Constitution, can make decisions
that the justices feel are socially beneficial. Why? Because society
and the law must evolve together. This is the state of modern jurisprudence.
The problem, however, is that if the judges hold a view of life that
differs from that of those who believe in the Judeo-Christian ethic,
then there will be a different outcome. That was evident in the Roe
v. Wade decision. And it can be seen in some recent decisions
in which U.S. Supreme Court justices are actually relying on foreign
treaties and other principles of law in foreign countries that are
not found in the U.S. Constitution. The justices are, in some instances,
actually making extra-constitutional decisions. This is not in the
purview of their authority. What this means is that there is now a
group of people—the justices—that can say what the law
is. Thus, we in America are not really operating under a written Constitution.
There are many problems with this philosophy. For example, when it
came time to define when human life begins, the Supreme Court gave
us Roe v. Wade. Obviously, the justices had a different view
of human life, what it is and when it begins. The Constitution does
not answer those questions. However, it is not really within the purview
of courts to define life. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution
addressing the legality of abortion. The justices supposedly found
it in the penumbras that emanate from the Bill of Rights. One of these
penumbras was the right to privacy. The justices, through serpentine
reasoning, delivered the decision in Roe v. Wade. If the justices
had held a Christian view of life, however, most likely they would
have rendered a different decision in Roe v. Wade. To reiterate,
that is why Dr. Schaeffer is so concerned by the societal vacuum left
by Christians.
There is an important parallel principle that needs to be addressed
that is akin to the human life issue—that is, how we as human
beings should treat the rest of creation. Judeo-Christian theism says,
to my way of thinking, that the reverence for life carries, for example,
over to animals as well. Animals are not to be mistreated. Why? Because
life as a whole is sacred, for it is God’s handiwork. Trees
shouldn’t be cut down unless it’s necessary because life
is sacred. Sadly, many Christians who hold a misguided view of the
dominion principle found in Genesis do not have this viewpoint. The
dominion principle applies to the ordering of the world around us,
including nature, by way of science and the arts. It is not there
as a way of justifying the ravaging of nature, as many Christians
believe. Indeed, some non-Christian environmentalists practice a better
version of the dominion principle than do some evangelicals. They
at least believe nature should be protected against pillaging.
The point is that the impact on human life from the societal shift
has been devastating. And as the Roe v. Wade decision has
taken on the aura of a general societal philosophy, millions of unborn
children have been murdered as a result. And these unborn babies are
children. If you take them out of the womb and lay them on a table,
they have arms, legs and eyes. They are human beings who have been
defined out of existence.
This is the societal impact of losing the Christian belief in the
sacredness of human life. It has tremendous ramifications, and it
has not fully played itself out yet. Where it is manifesting itself
now is in the area of genetic engineering, cloning and scientific
tinkering with life. We must remember that the multi-corporations
have such a tremendous amount of influence and money. They can manipulate
the president, Congress, the entire power structure, and they do.
It does not matter who is in leadership. It is happening. These corporations
have a horrific power, and they know there are billions of dollars
to be made from manipulating the genetic structure of people, animals
and plants.
Fifty years ago, such thinking horrified most people. Today it does
not. That’s how quickly things change. People are different.
Their values have changed. Such thinking is reflected in every area
of culture and is very dangerous when it finds its way into law and
politics because it becomes something that is mandated. People die
as a result.
Top
“There
is a window that is open.”
What’s ahead of us? I would
suggest that we must have two tracks in mind simultaneously. First,
with a conservative swing of the last election, there is a window
that is open. There is no doubt about that. And let us hope that that
window stays open—not simply on just one issue as important
as human life but the total entity of the materialistic worldview.
Hopefully, it can be rolled back with its natural result in all areas,
including the area of law. I hope and I pray that we can work to keep
the window open. Now the window is open. We must take every possibility
that we have to roll back that which has come upon us out of the other
total entity. This means we must not just see, again, the bits and
pieces.
It won’t be easy to roll the total entity back because those
holding the other total worldview of reality are deeply entrenched.
And they will use every measure to see the momentum that they have
achieved triumph in all fields of thought. It won’t be easy
to roll it back because there are going to be those who are very intelligent
and who are going to do everything they can to see that the momentum
that they had previously will be regained. It is our task to use the
open window to try to change that direction at this very late hour.
We must optimistically press on.
Some of us, however, unhappily have to have a second track also operating
in our minds. And that is, what if the windows do not stay open? What
if they close? Then what? And some of us must be thinking of that
possibility. Thinking of this possibility does not negate doing all
we can to keep the window open.
However, first let’s consider for a moment where we are sociologically.
The counter-culture people of the ’60s have given up the hope
of an ideological solution of drugs and so on. They had given that
up by the end of the ’60s and the beginning of the ’70s.
There are still some anarchists around in the United States, and there
are a growing number. There is also a really large growing number
of anarchists among the European young people. In Europe today among
these young anarchists, the cry is “no power to anybody.”
That’s their cry. And what they are doing is carrying out in
practice that which has been expressed in the words. And my emphasis
is on the words and not the music of punk rock, for example. I don’t
know how many of you know the words of punk rock. But simply what
have been the words of punk rock, not the music, are that which these
young people are carrying out. If you looked at the recent issue of
Newsweek, you saw those young Germans standing there with their white,
painted faces. Any of you who know anything about the modern counterculture
would have recognized them as related to punk. No power to anybody.
Even staid Switzerland is shaken. Believe me, the Swiss are frightened
by the numbers who are coming forth with the slogan “no power
to anybody.”
Mostly by the ’70s in the United States, however, the counterculture
people had simply joined the system for their own kind of affluence
and their own kind of personal peace. The silent majority that we
heard a good bit about in Richard Nixon’s day really had two
parts. The minority of the silent majority were those who were operating
at least upon the memory of Christian principles. That was the minority
of the silent majority. The majority of the silent majority, however,
were those who had only two values—personal peace and affluence.
Now we have come to a very interesting time. I think it is what is
going to happen next, knowing the young people as well as I know them.
What we have, then, is the old majority of the silent majority functioning
on the basis of personal peace and affluence. We have the young people
joining the system and functioning on the basis of personal peace
and affluence. They stand opposite to each other in life. But don’t
you see that they support each other sociologically? What percentage
in the last election voted out of principle, and what percentage voted
for a change to increase their own personal peace and affluence? George
F. Will, in a recent article entitled “Rhetoric and Reality”
in the International Herald Tribune, suggested the portion to be 20
percent for principle and “80 percent for improved economic
numbers, no matter how provided.” That was Will’s observation.
Now, I wouldn’t guess as to the percentages. But long before
I read Will’s article, I had come to the same conclusion—that
the balance was something like that. Something like that. And if the
improved economic numbers are not forthcoming, then what? What happens
then? I do not think that probably there will be a swing to the old
liberalism of the last 50 years. It has been proven to be weak and
not to produce the economic numbers. Rather, it seems to me there
will be some form of an elite authoritarianism, as I suggested in
the book How Should We Then Live? Then all that would be needed in
much of the West (and I don’t say just the United States) would
be an illusion of what Will called impressed, or improved rather,
economic numbers. I think that is all it would take. And as I said
in How Should We Then Live?, this will be especially attractive if
it is brought in under the guise of constitutionality, as it was in
the time of Caesar Augustus. That’s what happened back there.
And if it can be brought in some sort of an elite authoritarianism
under the form of constitutionality, I don’t think for most
people there would be a wave.
However, what form would the elite take? No one at this point could
be sure. Various thinkers such as Daniel Bell, John Kenneth Galbraith
and others have put forth various concepts of where the elite might
arise. But the basic thing is not the quarter from which the elite
might arise. That’s not the chief point. It would be simply
the possibility of the rise of such an elite. For me personally, I
would say that the courts may form that elite—especially the
Supreme Court with its now avowedly sociological law basis and its
power to make law. The court also has the power to dominate the other
two parts of government. So, it must be considered as one of the possible
candidates. Only a possible thing. But it must be considered so.
However, I will repeat that the quarter from which an elite would
arise is not the chief point. And do you think the Christians and
the Christian institutions will not feel increased power pushed against
them in such a situation? How could you be so foolish to think that
that would not be the case? And should not the Christian lawyer be
thinking what to do about all this if there is this drift? The Christian
theologians, the educators and the lawyers have had a very poor average
up to this point. We have allowed the other total entity, the materialistic
energy, humanistic view of reality to take over from what the founding
fathers had in mind when the country began.
We have had a very poor record. I’d ask you something: If we
have run so poorly with the footmen, what would happen to us if we
have to run with the horsemen?
Dr. Schaeffer mentions the window
that opened for a time. Could you explain the window he was talking
about? What does it look like now?
J.W.W.: The open window
was the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency. Many evangelicals
threw their weight behind the Reagan candidacy. They believed he was
going to be their candidate and that he would stop abortion and so
on. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Reagan turned out to be a
classic Republican who was very much a materialist. He exhibited very
little spirituality, and he did not consistently advocate Judeo-Christian
concepts while in office. That is not to say that he was a bad president.
Reagan just didn’t do what Christians thought he would. Thus,
the so-called open window began to close. And within several years,
Bill Clinton was in office. One of Clinton’s first acts as president
was to issue an executive order lifting any federal restrictions on
abortion. In a few years, the so-called open window was completely
gone, and many Christians became disillusioned as a result. The entire
conservative movement faltered.
The reason Christians become disillusioned is because they hold illusions,
for example, that a man such as George W. Bush will change all the
things they believe are bad. However, it’s not going to happen.
Change will only come about in society when there is a reinstitution
of basic values in the culture. But first there will have to be a
renaissance among Christians. Thus, if there is going to be any real
change, it is very far off in the future.
In the general media, which is immensely influential, there are few
values anymore. Anything goes. As long as there are no values, no
matter who is president—even Francis Schaeffer—he would
have a difficult time trying to get anything done.
There is no open window right now. And until pastors, priests, rabbis
and other religious leaders teach their people to effectively practice
the Judeo-Christian ethic in every area of society, there will not
be an open window for hope. It is only going to get worse.
Most people intuitively see that there is little hope, and that is
why they are escaping. It is also the reason evangelicals are escaping
into the apocalypse themes and the fiction books. It’s easy
to hide your head and not face reality. Reality is a really hard thing
to face. This is especially true when you know that unborn children
are being slaughtered at abortion clinics and people around the world
are being killed by tyrants and slaughtered in countries and regimes
that the United States is, sad to say, funding with taxpayer monies.
It’s a horrible thing.
In one of his songs, John Lennon sang, “Living is easy with
eyes closed; misunderstanding all you see.” That is exactly
what most people are doing—closing their eyes, going to church,
reading the next book on the apocalypse. However, the apocalypse is
happening right here in front of them. Hell has spilled over in time.
And if we do not wake up, I fear for the children.
Top
“Christianity
has lost its influence in the general culture.”
Dr. Schaeffer raises the concern
that there was a shift after the ’60s and that with the basic
values of modern culture being personal peace and affluence above
all things, our society may be willing to elect any leader as long
as he or she promises peace and affluence. Schaeffer predicts this
will lead to authoritarianism.
J.W.W.: Contrary to
what many conservatives think, the decade of the ’60s was a
positive time in many ways. People became conscious of what was happening
around them and began questioning their core values. People like Bob
Dylan were writing some profound lyrics. Young people marched in the
streets and protested about things they thought were not right. “You
can’t treat us like machines and animals. And don’t kill
people in your crazy wars,” they said. That was the basic theme
of the ’60s. The young people were not always right in what
they were saying. However, it was an amazing time of questioning that
raised profound spiritual challenges as well.
Sadly, it was only a small window of time. It closed very quickly
as the staid ’50s culture of personal peace and affluence swept
it away into the ’70s. Once again, the culture reverted to materialism.
As a result, many of the ’60s radicals who were out in the streets
and wearing sandals changed virtually overnight to professionals wearing
business suits who were dedicated to making money. We do not have
to look hard to find a number of individuals who epitomize such self-gratification
no matter what the cost and regardless of who stands to suffer as
a result.
Thus, by the late ’70s, we were at square one again, with the
old materialistic values back in vogue. There was little talk of freedom
and change. With Ronald Reagan, all that came to a standstill.
However, even in the church the values of personal peace and affluence
are often dominant. As such, there is little semblance to the old
Reformation principles we have been talking about— even in the
churches. Thus, people are now increasingly looking to politicians
and the government for answers.
The lack of any Reformation thinking concerning individual freedom
and the like is a very important loss. As long as these principles
are impacting our minds, there will inevitably be challenges to any
elite that attempts to take control. But Christianity has lost its
influence in the general culture because Christians do not practice
such principles effectively. As a consequence, the general society
has no clue as to what values to hold or what principles a government
should be founded upon. We have lost the idea that the individual
is important, that everybody has a direct link to God and that we
are in a spiritual and cosmic battle of great magnitude. The natural
result of these developments, in terms of the form-freedom balance,
is that we are returning to a medieval mentality—that is, heavy-handed
government.
In this context, it is important to remember Dwight D. Eisenhower’s
Farewell Address to the Nation. There he warned the people to be wary
of what he called the military/industrial complex. I add entertainment
to the equation, making it the military/industrial/entertainment complex.
Through the so-called news channels, which are more newzak than actual
news, a certain kind of idea is promoted. This is often done in conjunction
with the government, from which the news people receive their information.
Behind the scenes, there are obviously very powerful people manipulating
the information fed to the public.
The loss of values not only shows in what we call the media, it permeates
government as well. Scandals surround every president, and it seems
that virtually everyone in politics has a price tag. So, naturally,
there will be an elite. Eisenhower was correct: We do have an elite
running the government.
That is why it is so vital that we have leaders who understand the
Judeo-Christian ethic and who live by it. However, it is difficult
to point to a moral politician. The reason for this is that Judeo-Christian
values are not generally taught in our society. For instance, if you
love your neighbors as yourself, you won’t cheat, lie or steal
from them. You will be honest and refuse to take a bribe if you are
a representative in Congress. Much of that has now been lost, however,
even in so-called Christian circles. Today all values are relative.
That’s what is taught in our schools. And that’s what
the Supreme Court practices in its decisions.
However, it is also taught from the White House. We have presidents
who say they are Christians. Indeed, most of them attend church. However,
if the way they conduct themselves is any evidence of what they believe,
we are definitely in trouble. It’s all politics. No one seems
to be able to tell the truth anymore. People on all levels need to
simply tell the truth. But virtually no one does. It has been said
that if men do not believe in God, they will believe in anything.
But that also applies to the loss of the Judeo-Christian ethic. People
will believe anything. That is the current situation.
Do you see authoritarianism happening?
J.W.W.: The United States
is moving inexorably toward a police state. This movement is reflected
in the laws and is found at every level of society. It is seen in
the U.S.A. Patriot Act passed by Congress shortly after Sept. 11,
2001. This mammoth federal law allows American intelligence agencies,
the FBI and police in general to invade every area of our lives.
It is also reflected in such practices as the enforcement of zero
tolerance policies in schools.
Life appears chaotic. Thus, people are attempting to gain control
of the situation through authoritarianism. But everything cannot be
controlled. No matter how many laws a legislature writes, there are
some things beyond control. For example, we now have more laws against
pornography than at any previous time, but we have more pornography
than ever before. This is a moral question that cannot be eradicated
by laws. Indeed, no matter how many security cameras the government
places on our street corners, this will not stop crime. Again, this
is a moral question, not one of crime control. Unfortunately, innocent
people fall under the strictures of these laws and policies and are
punished as if they were guilty. And in the end, as technology continues
to develop, any concept of privacy will cease and the average citizen
will be the one who is watched and harassed by the police. This is
inevitable.
Has the basic choice for authoritarian
rule from the government already happened?
J.W.W.: Yes, it has
already happened. And we are in the advanced stages of a police state,
although it has not happened quite yet. If the trends are not reversed,
however, a police state with strong military undergirding is likely.
The police and the military will fuse because the police are also
armed soldiers.
I am somewhat pessimistic that an authoritarian structure can be stopped,
though, because of the lack of values taught. Also, there is a lack
of people who hold any real values in positions where they can exercise
them. Thus, who will resist?
Dr. Schaeffer mentions the Supreme
Court as being part of the ruling elite.
J.W.W.: This is a quite
logical development, for several reasons. First, the Judeo-Christian
ethic which provides the basis for a form-freedom balance has dissipated
greatly. And second, since the early 19th century, the Supreme Court
has assumed the power to overrule laws of Congress. Thus, the Supreme
Court has immense power, and there is nothing the average citizen
can do about it. There is very little Congress will do about it. Add
to this the fact that the justices are appointed for life. Thus, they
are extremely powerful. They can, as we saw in Roe v. Wade,
redefine the value of human life. And, as we saw with George W. Bush,
the justices can decide who will serve as the next president.
A strong counterpart to the Supreme Court would be a president who
holds Judeo-Christian values. But he should be a lawyer as well so
he can understand the nuances of the court. However, with a president
like George W. Bush, who is not a lawyer and admits that he knows
little about the Constitution, our situation is quite precarious.
Top
“What
is the Christian’s final relationship to the state?”
I would suggest it is time to think
of the bottom line as our forefathers did; that is, what is the Christian’s
final relationship to the state? I think it is time to begin to think
about this as we look down the road of possibilities. Those of our
modern materialistically oriented generation have no reason to obey
the state except if the state has the guns and it has also the wealth
to distribute. That’s the only reason the modern generation
has to obey the state. But that is not true with the Christians. God
tells us to obey the state. But does that mean that we are told to
obey the state, no matter what? Is that really what the Bible says?
Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous? In this
area, indeed, is man the measure of all things? Not at all. The government,
as in all of life, stands under the law of God. When any office (and
I choose the word office with care), when any office—the husband,
the parent, the church officer, the employer or the state—rules
what is contrary to God’s law, it abrogates its authority. I
think that it’s as simple and as clear as that.
The early Christians died, as far
as the Roman state was concerned, as civil rebels because they refused
to bow to Caesar. From the side of the Christians, they died for religious
reasons. From the side of the Roman state, they died as civil rebels
because they were breaking the state law. Nobody cared about the religious
side of it. It was a matter of civil disobedience for which they went
to their death.
We also must remember that at almost every point, if not at every
point, where the reformation was successful there were elements of
political rebellion involved. Samuel Rutherford formulated this concept
in Lex, Rex. And Rutherford would have probably himself been killed
if he hadn’t died before they managed to try him. ... Lex, Rex
was banned in both Scotland and England because it said the law is
king—that the king as well as the peasant was under the Scripture.
And that was rebellion. The Scripture was first and the government
was under the Scriptures. And the government did not stand autonomous.
John Locke secularized Lex, Rex. His
points were inalienable rights—government by consent, separation
of powers and the right of revolution. Stated in another way, it is
the right to resist unlawful authority. These were the points of Locke
upon which Jefferson functioned.
Witherspoon certainly knew Rutherford’s writing well. The other
founding fathers may have known him or may not, but they certainly
knew Locke. In both Lex, Rex and Locke, there comes a time when there
must be disobedience on the appropriate level. And in my own notes,
I have that heavily underlined. There must be disobedience on the
appropriate level—graduated as set forth in Rutherford’s
Lex, Rex.
Now, of course, this is scary. If you don’t feel scary, then
something is the matter with you. This is scary. First, however, we
must make very plain that we are in no way talking about any kind
of a theocracy. That must be made absolutely certain and plain so
that nobody can misunderstand. Secondly, we have so many kooky people
around that to talk in this way is naturally scary. If you don’t
think that, then you don’t meet the kind of people I meet. So,
therefore, we must stress with tremendous force that any kind of resistance
must be on the appropriate level and with all the safeguards that
Samuel Rutherford discusses in Lex, Rex. He built in tremendous safeguards.
I won’t go into them at this time. John Whitehead’s book
The Second American Revolution covers this very, very well, indeed.
But Rutherford built in tremendous, tremendous safeguards. So we have
to say 10,000 times 10,000, resistance “on the appropriate level.”
However, this does not change the need of thinking about Rutherford’s,
Locke’s and the founding fathers’ bottom line. They had
a bottom line. The 13 colonies concluded that the time had come, and
they disobeyed. I do not have time to go in tonight here how closely
they followed Rutherford’s model and his safeguards. They followed
them with amazing fidelity. Amazing exactness. The civil disobedience
became war, and the United States of America was born. The basic thing
was not a question of pragmatism, but of principle. They knew that
if there is no final place for civil disobedience, then government
has been made autonomous. And, as such, government has been placed
in the place of God. You must understand that. Samuel Rutherford understood
this. Locke did, and the founding fathers did equally.
.Our model should come from the Black
Panther party. When the civil rights movement was truly a struggle
of individuals against tyranny, the Panthers made a regular habit
of conducting armed patrols of their neighborhoods. The police and
the government were not only failing to protect; they were in a mode
of active attack. We are not, as a culture, currently facing any situation
of that gravity. But who is to say we won’t? The Black Panthers
were not right-wing good old ys. They were not NRA zealots. They were
people who cared about themselves and their community and who chose
to act on that concern. The left wing in America needs to remember
its roots. Furthermore, we all need to rethink our trust, and start
recognizing certain fundamental realities. It would certainly be nice
if there were no violence, no threats, in a. Until that day comes,
why are we so willing to give in, and to demonize those who choose
not to?
*Editor’s
Note: This is not an accurate description of the Supreme Court’s
holding in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In Miller,
307 U.S. at 178, the Court, faced with a poor factual record, held, "in
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument." In Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8, the Supreme Court described Miller
as holding that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep
and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’"
However, the Supreme Court "did not attempt to define, or otherwise
construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 939 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring).
