OldSpeak
Christians Under the Scripture: A Lecture by Dr. Francis Schaeffer (Part 3 of 3)
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 the struggle for better stewardship of the Earth. The environmentalists understand that fact. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could you discuss the relationship between the Christian and the state? If God has established a state, at what point do we disobey what the state dictates?
J.W.W.: That’s a very difficult question in a society that retains a semblance of freedom. In a totalitarian society, of course, one is faced with different alternatives. When Adolf Hitler was openly ordering the murder of millions of Jews and others, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian minister, joined in a plot to assassinate him. That was a different situation. There was not much choice. It was a difficult choice but a much easier decision to make. I do not believe Bonhoeffer was wrong. But he did pay the price for his actions. He was jailed and executed.
We, however, live in a free society. Our government, as far as we know, is not, like the Nazis, murdering people. There are points even in a free society where one can disobey. For example, anytime the state orders Christians to directly violate their faith, they have a right at that point to disobey. However, it should not be done with violence. But as in Bonhoeffer’s case, there are consequences to disobedience. Many of the great Christians and Jews of the past have taken responsibility for their actions. Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail during the civil rights movement. And he was right to go to jail in defense of his beliefs. At any point where a governmental edict directly conflicts with the Bible, then resistance is an option. For example, if the government passed a law declaring that no one could go to church or that the people could only attend churches approved by the state, then disobeying would obviously be a biblical alternative.
Dr. Schaeffer also makes the link between the present and the American War of Independence.
J.W.W.: The Colonial Americans fought a defensive war against an outside aggressor. That was an entirely different situation from what we face today. The British invaded and were placing soldiers in the colonists’ homes. There were allegations that the British were raping colonial women. People were arrested and put in jail for protesting British rule. Thus, the colonists defended their homeland. It was a defensive counterrevolution — one based on Judeo-Christian principles.
The Colonial Americans initially tried to settle matters without violence. They sent grievances to the king. Then finally they wrote the Declaration of Independence. And we cannot forget that it was the British who invaded Colonial America. It could all have been very easily handled if the British had agreed to independence and recognized the colonists’ human rights, which they should have done. This would have been an amicable break and no war would have ensued. But the British did not do that.
However, the structure of the American government was born of this conflict. And the colonists learned their lesson. The reason we have the provision in the Bill of Rights as part of our Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures, for example, is that the early Americans suffered horrible treatment at the hands of the British. They determined that they did not want this to happen again to the generations that would follow.
Dr. Schaeffer states that he is not in any way talking about establishment of a theocracy. If Christians are resisting the state to institute Christian values, how is that different from a theocracy?
J.W.W.: A government can operate from Judeo-Christian principles without establishing a theocracy. Respecting human life and treating people fairly are Judeo-Christian values. They are found in our criminal laws. Thus, these principles have already been adopted by the American government, and we do not have a theocracy. Although many American laws were based on religious precepts in the beginning, they no longer are seen as such.
The point is, however, that such laws did not arise from a vacuum. The early Americans were a religious people who were grounded in Judeo-Christian theism. To them, that was the way to operate institutions, whether private or governmental.
An important factor in all this was the intellectual capacity of the Colonial clergy, who exerted a strong influence over the society in which they lived. Their sermons were often published and circulated throughout the colonies as broadsides. For example, there was a minister named Samuel West who spoke and wrote revolutionary concepts before the Declaration of Independence was penned. Some argue that language from one of West’s printed sermons found its way into the Declaration of Independence. And Thomas Jefferson admitted that he did not write anything new in this document. He clearly stated that the ideas of the day, which would include those of the ministers, found their way into the Declaration of Independence. One might wonder why the British would often burn the American churches. It was because that was where the colonists met to plan resistance to the British. Much of the early resistance against the British was led by Christians in general and their ministers in particular.
Dr. Schaeffer discusses the book “Lex, Rex.” Could you explain its historical context and how it relates to us today?
J.W.W.: “Lex, Rex” was Samuel Rutherford’s treatise, which was published in 1644. “Lex, Rex,” properly translated from the Latin, is The Law and the Prince. Rutherford stressed the proper relationship between the government and its people. His basic thesis was that all people are under the rule of law — all rulers, even the king and today the president.
At the time in Europe, this thesis was seen as treason because the king considered himself to be above everything, even the law. This doctrine was called the divine right of kings, and it meant that the king could promulgate a policy and thus make it law. Rutherford said that no king could do that. Everyone, he argued, is under the rule of law. A king, for example, should not be able to make a law that would take someone’s property away without due process.
Because “Lex, Rex” was seen as treason, it was burned in the streets of Great Britain. And probably the only thing that saved Rutherford, a Scot, from being executed was that he died first of old age.
“Lex, Rex” had tremendous ramifications. In “Lex, Rex,” Rutherford argues that there are three levels of resistance in which a person may engage. First, one can defend himself by protest (in contemporary society this would usually be by legal action). Second, he must flee if at all possible; and third, he may use force, if absolutely necessary, to defend himself. But a person may not employ force if he may save himself by flight. Nor should one employ flight if he can defend himself by protest and the employment of constitutional means of redress. Rutherford illustrated this pattern of resistance from the life of David in the Old Testament. Moreover, all the levels of resistance are tempered, for example, by New Testament principles such as treating your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, a resort to violence would always be extremely rare.
Why all this is so important is that because the leaders of the American Revolution were familiar, either directly or indirectly, with the philosophy of Rutherford, they actually used such principles to structure their resistance to Great Britain. This has not been proved conclusively. However, we do know that the colonists read John Locke, who was familiar with Rutherford’s work.
Which stage of resistance are we in at present?
J.W.W.: We are not in any stage of resistance. There is no resistance except for a few people who maybe picket abortion clinics. Christians in general have been corrupted. We have compromised. We have bought into materialism and, as a result, do not even know we have been corrupted.
Remember that Jesus Christ was an itinerant preacher. As far as we know, He only had one suit of clothes. When He needed money to pay taxes, He retrieved it from the mouth of a fish. This is the way the founder of Christianity lived. His disciples lived the same way. When they went out to spread the faith, they didn’t take anything with them. Compare that with the way the modern Christian operates, and you will see a tremendous gulf.
Why did early Christianity have such power? Because it was a totally spiritual faith. It was not materialistic. The early Christians were willing to give their lives for their faith. Again, compare that with the modern Christian who will not even protest against the killing of unborn children. Most will not even use a lawyer to fight for their faith. They are simply content to attend church and then go home and watch television.
Recent studies on American Christianity indicate that modern Christianity differs substantially from that of the recent American past. The theory is that seldom does one hear an emphasis on sin or hell anymore. What is preached most today is only the love of God — which is the central tenet of New Ageism — without a requirement for obedience to God. Because we are not hearing a full-orbed gospel, we have lost the spiritual power of the early American ministers such as Jonathan Edwards. The faith has lost most of its original spirituality and, thus, its vitality.
Do you ever wonder how Jesus Christ and His small group of followers revolutionized the world — while modern American Christianity with some 50 million to 60 million people makes virtually no impact? Society just gets continually worse. Why?
Pastors need to return to the drawing board. They need to search their souls to see why the Christian faith has so little impact. I believe the answer is that many churches are not spiritual. True spirituality is lived by example. In the end, the greatest witness you as a Christian can have is how you live your life. Are you consistent in your beliefs? Are you standing up for truth? Are you willing to put yourself in the line of fire for your beliefs?
Francis Schaeffer’s last book was titled “The Great Evangelical Disaster.” One of the main thrusts of that book is that we have lost the spiritual foundation of the faith. Christians are no longer the salt of the culture. We cannot forget that the Pilgrims, who were Christians, settled America. Christianity was infused into this country’s basic fabric. It is in all of our founding documents. Two-hundred years later, you can hardly find any remnant of it. What happened?
What does all this mean for us sitting here? I really am not sure, to be honest with you, except to say this. We have been geniuses in always thinking behind in regard to the fact that we do not face bits and pieces but a total world-view which is rooted in the false view of reality and which mathematically brings forth different and wrong and inhuman results in all of life. This is nowhere more so than in law and government, which it uses for its tool. It is time to think ahead, including the biblical reality that when any office commands that which is contrary to God’s law, it abrogates its authority. And on the proper level, the Lordship of Christ and the whole spectrum of life require that we do the appropriate thing, that we do something about it.
I must say at this point that Samuel Rutherford was not wrong. Samuel Rutherford was right. However, you will remember this is the second fact I was talking about. The first fact, and the immediate one, is to take advantage of the windows that are open at the present moment. But if we are going to take advantage of the windows that are open at the present moment, it really means taking advantage of them. Not just thinking and acting upon bits and pieces but trying to remedy the total that is the materialistic energy worldview that considers these things shaped by chance as the final reality. Realizing that this view will mathematically bring forth certain results will then not only be relativistic and wrong but inhuman, as they have no possible final base for the dignity of man. This is absolutely mathematical. I say that as one who has studied philosophy across the whole board for many, many years.
In conclusion, the lawyer under the Scripture and all that is under the Scripture means not just taking legal and political stands but practicing all the possible Christian alternatives that are open before us. In “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” I stress this forcibly in regard to the problems of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia of the old. But it isn’t just practicing the Christian alternatives in regard to human life in this narrower sense of abortion and infanticide and the use of euthanasia of the old. It is also practicing the Christian alternatives concerning all the stands shown forth in the things that we talk about and which we do. This means practicing the Christian alternatives in all areas, even when it is costly. I would stress that it is going to be costly to practice the Christian alternatives.
I have something I believe is true. I think if the church of the Lord Jesus Christ had practiced the Christian alternatives in the last, say, 75 years, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in on most of these things. I think that’s true. I would say that Christian reconciliation practiced by some Christian lawyers is a step in the right direction. In regard to all the abnormal results of the fall, we are now to show there are some Christian alternatives which will not bring perfection but which will bring substantial healing, even now before Christ returns.
I would be the last one in the world to draw back and to lessen what I have said about our political responsibilities and our legal responsibilities. But finally it’s not a question of political responsibility or legal responsibility. Eventually it’s a spiritual matter, and that includes the practice of the Christian alternatives. To think that all that is needed is simply showing the Christian alternatives without legal and political involvement is romantic in this fallen, abnormal world. But to fail the practice of the Christian alternatives is even more tragic.
Practicing the Christian alternatives will be costly. This must be the role instead of fearing to rock the boat concerning our own projects. It will require getting rid of the false platonic spirituality which has imprisoned us for so long and so many of us who come from Christian backgrounds. It will require truly having Christ as Lord across the whole spectrum of life. However, fighting the necessary legal battles without truly practicing the Christian alternatives is less than the lawyer, or any of us, should do under Scripture.
Where do we go from here?
J.W.W.: That’s a tough question. First, we must return to the beginning and emphasize the Lordship of Christ. Second, we must, if we are to have any impact at all, show a total love for our fellow human beings. Love which does not pit itself against suffering, oppression and humiliation is sloppy and irrelevant. Go to the AIDS clinics, the homeless shelters and the like and show the sacrificial love of Christ. Third, get educated on the issues and take passionate stands on the truth. Don’t compromise. Fourth, get involved at all levels of life. Turn off the television set and grab a picket sign and protest in front of the abortion clinics. Urge your children to become lawyers, doctors and scientists. Involve them in the arts so they are able to understand their culture. We need to build a generation of leaders who understand true Christianity. And last, but not least, study Christ and the disciples and imitate how they lived out the faith. It was not something they did merely on Sunday. They lived the faith each second of each day. To do less is a betrayal of everything Christ taught.
Part One • Part Two • Part Three
DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN OLDSPEAK ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE.
