OldSpeak
Christians Under the Scripture: A Lecture by Dr. Francis Schaeffer (Part 1 of 3)
By John W. Whitehead
December 23, 2003
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. I count myself 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, founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, 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.
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.
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.
Part One • Part Two • Part Three
DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN OLDSPEAK ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE.
