True Legacy of Francis Schaeffer.

[HaigLaw]

As a brand new Christian, I visited L'Abri in June 1969 and listened to a lot of Dr. Schaeffer's tapes. I didn't understand a thing of his philosophy then. The only thing I understood then was a tape from his wife Edith from her book Tapestries. She talked about how God weaves the tapestry of our lives, and we see it like a confused twisting of threads from the back, but He sees it as the beautiful picture He's weaving from the front.

During the 70's I read his How Shall We Then Live, and others and began to understand him more, and appreciate his outreach to my generation, which was burned out on existentialism. Whether he was a great philosopher or not, he reached out to people who were victims of philosophies like existentialism.

I discovered the Reformed Faith in 1976 and by the early 80's was beginning to have some trouble with Schaeffer, in regards to him not being as consistent and as Reformed as people like Rushdoony. I remember him appearing on the 700 Club, probably in 1983 or 1984, and telling Pat Robertson he didn't believe in any kind of theocracy, and that the civil magistrate did not have any jurisdiction over the first table of the law. Somehow, and I don't remember why, I took this as a backhanded slap against Rushdoony. At Fran Schaeffer's last rally in Dallas in 1984 or 1985, I confronted him about that and gave him Rush's definition of "theocracy" and asked him what his definition was. It was something about the church running the state, as I recall. And I asked him whether there was any Biblical support for his notion that the civil magistrate had no jurisdiction over the first table. He cited references from his books, but no scripture, obviously. And his views on pluralism.

 

[etexas]

 

[HaigLaw]

Again, I am not trying to smear Schaeffer. And when I originally read that Franky hadn't made his more outlandish statements. But I am in an environment that is tempted to make Schaeffer do more than he could. Of course, equally bad things could be said of Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't doubt that. Anyway, this is more of a black mark on Franky than it is on Francis.

I'm not sure it's either. I read that entire interview by Whitehead, and I think I've already summarized it here somewhere on PB, so I'll just say now that I think the point Franky was making with that vignette was simply that his dad was very human, and he and his dad both knew they were sinners.

I did not get the take that this quote implies without any context, which is, that Fran Schaeffer was soft on sin. I don't think that was Franky's point, and I don't think that was true of Fran.

It is par for the course, for a kiss and tell book. I think that's about all you can make of that vignette. There is some good to the book, but as I say, I've already commented on that, and will not repeat that.

 

[jwithnell]

I'm not sure I understand what's meant about Mr. Schaeffer coming out of a fundamentalist denomination -- he was at Covenant church in St. Louis, which is now part of the PCA. One of the current L'Abri leaders holds a degree from Westminster. I didn't know the reformed connections until after I joined the PCA: when I started looking for a church as a new believer, I tried to find one that was in agreement with Mr. Schaeffer, and am extremely grateful that the Lord placed me under excellent reformed teaching.

I'm also a little puzzled about claims of poor scholarship where Mr. Schaeffer intersected with others. While he liked to push people to their logical conclusions, it didn't seem to have the same flavor as the fully presuppositional approach taught by Mr. Van Til. In fact, I've puzzled over Mr. Schaeffer's apologetics because they don't seem to entirely square with any other approach. Also, the idea that we must develop a thoroughly Christian world and life view certainly didn't originate in the mid-20th century. I think he was being consistent with the whole stream of reformed thinking, particularly in his call to Christians to take on the political side of life to the shame of those churches in the 50s and 60s who were willing to abandon the state to the secularists.

 

[DMcFadden]

See this site for free courses on Francis Schaeffer and his legacy. The first one deals with his early years and the second his later years.

Covenant Worldwide -- Francis A. Schaeffer: The Early Years

Covenant Worldwide -- Francis A. Schaeffer: The Later Years

Schaeffer only spent two years at WTS, where he studied under Van Til.

In 1937, Schaeffer transferred to Faith Theological Seminary, graduating in 1938. This seminary was newly formed as a result of a split in the Presbyterian Church of America (now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and the Bible Presbyterian Church, a Presbyterian denomination more identified with Fundamentalist Christianity and premillennialism. Schaeffer was the first student to graduate and the first to be ordained in the Bible Presbyterian Church.

The Faith Seminary connection would stick to him like glue in some circles. When I was a seminarian, Jack Rogers had a case study on Schaeffer to show what a fundy he was. It devoted itself to every little squabble Schaeffer had with anyone back in his early years prior to L'Abri.

 

[jwithnell]

That is interesting. I was aware of the split, but not aware of where Mr. Schaeffer was in all this.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not sure I understand what's meant about Mr. Schaeffer coming out of a fundamentalist denomination -- he was at Covenant church in St. Louis, which is now part of the PCA. One of the current L'Abri leaders holds a degree from Westminster. I didn't know the reformed connections until after I joined the PCA: when I started looking for a church as a new believer, I tried to find one that was in agreement with Mr. Schaeffer, and am extremely grateful that the Lord placed me under excellent reformed teaching.

Schaeffer was an early leader in the Bible Presbyterian Church, a Fundamentalist denomination.

I'm also a little puzzled about claims of poor scholarship where Mr. Schaeffer intersected with others. While he liked to push people to their logical conclusions, it didn't seem to have the same flavor as the fully presuppositional approach taught by Mr. Van Til.

I don't think I said poor scholarship. I said he wasn't as rigorous as Van Til or Rushdoony. Read Christian Manifesto. He almost quotes verbatim from Rushdoony but sees where Rush's (and Samuel Rutherford's) conclusions leads and pulls back--which is why the book, for all its good points, is a muted trumpet.

]QUOTE]In fact, I've puzzled over Mr. Schaeffer's apologetics because they don't seem to entirely square with any other approach.[/QUOTE]

That's part of the weakness to it. He defines neutrality in a way that gets Greek paganism off of the hook.

Also, the idea that we must develop a thoroughly Christian world and life view certainly didn't originate in the mid-20th century.

I know. Bavinck or Kuyper on that one

I think he was being consistent with the whole stream of reformed thinking, particularly in his call to Christians to take on the political side of life to the shame of those churches in the 50s and 60s who were willing to abandon the state to the secularists.

He wasn't consistent with his Reformed approach. See how many times he mentioned predestination. I think the failures of the religious right can be contributed to his work. He misdefined theocracy. He merely wanted a place at the table when he should have declared the Table belonging to King Jesus. That is why Evangelicals today can talk about a "Christian voice" in politics but really haven't done anything about it.

Again, I really don't like saying this since he was a great leader.

 

[Grymir]

Hi Etexas. Sorry it's taken so long for me to post, I would of done it earlier in the discussion, but I've been camping with my wife for 3 wonderful days.

Francis Schaeffer is great! He can tie the strands of philosophical thought like no one else and apply them to the church's thought. Of course he sounds like Rush (not Limbaugh) because he studied under Van Til. DMcFaddens links are a great study. (Mega Ditto's DMc!!) His How Now Shall We Live is a wonderful study of Art, Culture, and Philosophy that should be viewed by all!! I've even used it as a class in my church. Even in PCUSA, they were hungry for it and ate it all up. Don't worry about what Franky Schaffer is saying. Everyone has issues, and Franky seems to have a boatload. (To cut down someones work because of moral character is a logical fallicy. Franky should have listen to his father more ((God and Francis )) ) Francis shines in taking advanced thoughts and ideas and bringing them down to a level that most can read.

His legacy will be good. Time will be good to him.

 

[bookslover]

Os Guinness, who knew Francis Schaeffer well, takes down Schaeffer's son here: Fathers and Sons - Books & Culture

 

[calgal]

When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now? curious minds want to know...

 

[DMcFadden]

Frank claims to affiliate with the orthodox communion, I believe.

 

[christiana]

Back in the 70s while working as a Visiting Nurse I attended a workshop where a video was shown. I believe it was How Should We Then Live. The video remains in my mind as a stunning reminder of the horrors of abortion. One scene showed thousands and thousands of baby dolls washing up on the beach! It stuck as an image of the great damage done in our country daily. The workshop was a joint effort of Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop way before Dr. Koop ever became our Surgeon General. I also read many of Francis Schaeffer's books and though some were very deep they made lasting impact. I still have a video marketed by Coral Ridge Ministries with Francis Schaeffer speaking. I will watch it again soon to recall his message! A friend of mine went to L'Abri and I always had a longing to go there but it never took place! I loved reading about L'Abri and the impact of Francis Schaeffer's efforts to call our country to attention to its coming dark days, in which we live even now!!

 

[MrMerlin777]

When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now? curious minds want to know...

The RPCES formed out of the BPC.

Franky is now Eastern Orthodox and has been for some time.

 

[Ivan]

Francis Schaeffer is great!...His legacy will be good. Time will be good to him.

Amen! I am indebted to him.

 

[JohnV]

I am greatly indebted to Schaeffer. For me his books, especially The God Who IsThere and He Is There And He Is Not Silent, were crucial at the time. They are still so to this day.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I am greatly indebted to Schaeffer. For me his books, especially The God Who IsThere and He Is There And He Is Not Silent, were crucial at the time. They are still so to this day.

Indeed, they are the same for me.

 

[christiana]

The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:

Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!

 

[Ivan]

The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:

Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!

He was a prophet without promoting himself as one. My pastor while I was in college was an admirer of Dr. Schaeffer. He has noted many times Francis Schaeffer's foresight.

 

[Josiah]

When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now? curious minds want to know...

I believe in 1956 Schaeffer stayed with the BPC (Columbus Synod), when the BPC (Collingswood Synod) broke away. There he continued as that group took on the name the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in 1961, until that particular body merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Synod in 1964, to become the RPCES.

I think that is correct.

 

[christiana]

The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:

Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!

He was a prophet without promoting himself as one. My pastor while I was in college was an admirer of Dr. Schaeffer. He has noted many times Francis Schaeffer's foresight.

Foresight is definitely a good way of saying that he definitely saw clearly what was ahead for us! What is so terribly said is the truth of his say 'We are all just stupid' for not declaring our rights and following our Creator God, rather that sliding on down the slipery slope! As he said, 'Where were the lawyers, the doctors the leaders that failed to speak up and stop this encroaching humanism that now has put life in the hands of evil men in power'. He was so right about all he said!
The video in my first post on this thread was 'Whatever Happened to the Human Race?'. I was unable to edit and correct for some reason.
Scary is the thought of once abortion was approved then all life is at risk! To me as one who is older and has had experience in hospitals, nursing homes and private homes with nursing I know the dangers that are up close and personal! To me all medical care and hospital stays are risky! The value of life is of no consequence when one ceases to follow the one true God and His values!

 

[RamistThomist]

He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.

 

[Zenas]

'Where were the lawyers, the doctors the leaders that failed to speak up and stop this encroaching humanism that now has put life in the hands of evil men in power'.

To our credit, there are groups of lawyers who are fighting the encroaching humanism. It seems like it's more of a battle to regain lost ground than it is to hold what we have though.

You know, some of you smarty-pants on here are vastly more intelligent and able than I, come join the battle.

 

[bookslover]

Franky is now Eastern Orthodox and has been for some time.

And he once claimed that, if his father were still alive, he, too, would be Eastern Orthodox - which I think is a complete crock.

 

[JohnV]

I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.

It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case.

I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.

 

[bookslover]

It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom...

Poor Franky. He'll be 56 years old in August, and is still trying to figure out what he wants to be when he grows up. A problem all too common with children of famous parents.

Meanwhile, Schaeffer's widow, Edith, will be 94 some time this year.

 

[R Harris]

He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.

Exactly. He had the same problem that Van Til had; oddly, they never could come to grasp the implications of what they were saying and what their teachings should logically lead to.

Those same problems still plagued conservative Presbyterianism and evangelicalism today. Somehow, they all seem to think (with Chuck Colson being a primary example) that some sort of compromise with the world on political, cultural, and social issues is still possible. As long as they maintain this position, no real hope for change is possible.

I often have wondered why Van Til and Schaeffer did not come to the same conclusions that RJR and other theonomists/reconstructionists/national confessionalists did. Was it fear? Was it uncertainty? Was it "respectability"? Maybe someone else can answer, but I don't know.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I am speaking into the dark here but I think the reason more people are not theonomists and/or Christian Reconstructionists is a bit of fear of a loss of respectability and admiration in the academy and among unbelieving friends.

I also think the same fear keeps many from accepting a 6/24 reading Gen 1-2:4a...

 

[etexas]

I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.

It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case.

I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.

I understand what you are saying my Brother, I think if you read my OP you will see my intent was not to create a Cult of Francis, this threads intent is to examine his legacy (books, writings, lectures) and create a balanced view, this is to take it all in "warts and all" and see how the Lord used him in our lives. Blessings.

 

[RamistThomist]

He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.

Exactly. He had the same problem that Van Til had; oddly, they never could come to grasp the implications of what they were saying and what their teachings should logically lead to.

Those same problems still plagued conservative Presbyterianism and evangelicalism today. Somehow, they all seem to think (with Chuck Colson being a primary example) that some sort of compromise with the world on political, cultural, and social issues is still possible. As long as they maintain this position, no real hope for change is possible.

I often have wondered why Van Til and Schaeffer did not come to the same conclusions that RJR and other theonomists/reconstructionists/national confessionalists did. Was it fear? Was it uncertainty? Was it "respectability"? Maybe someone else can answer, but I don't know.

Chuck Colson is the best negative proof for CR.

 

[JohnV]

I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.

It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case.

I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.

I understand what you are saying my Brother, I think if you read my OP you will see my intent was not to create a Cult of Francis, this threads intent is to examine his legacy (books, writings, lectures) and create a balanced view, this is to take it all in "warts and all" and see how the Lord used him in our lives. Blessings.

I guess I'm looking at what Schaeffer was pointing to, not at Schaeffer himself. He could only give to us his own limited views and understanding of that bigger beauty he beheld, and it is to that bigger beauty that I too gaze. Just like Calvin pointed us to something bigger than himself; and Augustine before him. I was thinking that if we don't look in the direction that they were pointing then we're really looking at the wrong thing. If we're looking at the men, as if their teachings were limited to their own views, then we haven't really understood their teachings.

I think that this more than anything else is what I've gotten from Schaeffer, by his example and his teaching.

And...

My best wishes go out to Mrs. Schaeffer. Apparently I just missed her when I was at L'Abri in Southborough.