Getting Francis Schaeffer Right

Lately with all the talk of “Dominionism” and the scary religious right and Frank Schaeffer chiming in, I feel the need to draw attention to a portrait of Francis Schaeffer that I think really portrayed him fairly and without the usual political histrionics.  I wrote the following review (which appeared in Themelios) of Colin Duriez’s Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life back in 2009.

As a PhD student, I provided research assistance to the Baylor historian Barry Hankins as he wrote his biography of Francis Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]). At the time, I remember asking Professor Hankins if the family had been cooperative. They had not. Having read Colin Duriez’s treatment of Schaeffer, I think I know why. The family was cooperating with him, so much so that this book could be considered an authorized biography. Duriez’s portrayal is very powerfully personal, more so than anything I have read save Schaeffer’s own books, which are self-revelatory to some degree.

An Authentic Life features a number of unforgettable scenes from Schaeffer’s life. The reader who has a jaundiced view of Schaeffer as some kind of plastic-mold religious right stereotype will encounter a complex man who had a powerful instinct for justice. As a teenager, young Fran had a job with RCA Victor where he worked in the factory. The women posted along the production line were mistreated and overworked. One day, a woman stopped her work and began calling for a strike. She was soon joined by Schaeffer, who jumped up on a counter, yelling in his piercing voice, “Strike, Strike” (p. 24). This was, after all, the same man who would one day criticize comfortable American Christians for their addiction to personal peace and affluence and their non-compassionate use of wealth.

The pioneer of Christian worldview had a hard road to ministry. His father asked to speak to him at 5:30 a.m. on the morning he was to leave for college and pre-ministerial studies. When they met, his father bluntly told Schaeffer that he did not want a minister for a son and did not want him to go. The young man asked to go pray about it. Tearfully, he tossed a coin three times with each outcome landing in favor of going on to college at Hampden-Sydney. He informed his father, “I’ve got to go.” Just before slamming the door on his way out, his father promised to pay for the “first half year” (pp. 25–26). Time would bring the father to share his son’s beliefs.

Duriez’s book is full of similar interesting vignettes from Schaeffer’s life. One theme stands out very clearly. Francis Schaeffer was a man filled with love for the so-called “little people” who were not valued by the world. While he was still a young minister, we discover that he tutored a young boy with Down Syndrome twice each week and took great delight in every increment of progress. He felt the boy’s forward steps were just as important, in his wife Edith’s words, “as talking to any university student about his intellectual problems” (pp. 50–51). This event perfectly foreshadows his later powerful insistence upon the importance of the sanctity of life, an area in which he was far ahead of the main body of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Connecting the young Schaeffer to the more famous, older man is a great strength of Colin Duriez’s book. It has become well-accepted to break Schaeffer’s life up into segments and to characterize him as three different people. There is the young, fire breathing fundamentalist eager to “be ye separate” from the impure compromisers; the artsy, compassionate, bohemian founder of L’abri in Switzerland; and then the old man, brushing off his best instincts and returning to his fundamentalist roots to fight for the doctrine of inerrancy and “Christian America.” While it is possible to reach such a conclusion by looking at his early career and then considering the chronological development of his publications, this book rejects that approach by portraying Schaeffer as a consistent personality throughout.

The man who cared enough to tutor a little boy with Down Syndrome is also the man who told his church in St. Louis that he would resign if a black person ever came to his church and felt unwelcome. The budding intellectual who answered the existential questions of college students in Europe is also the agitator who took up the cause of the unborn and became arguably the finest shaper of and advocate for a potent evangelical critique of modern culture. Two sentences in the book make this point about Schaeffer brilliantly: “It was not a new Schaeffer that was emerging. His theology, honed over many decades since the passionate articles of the later forties and early fifties, was that of the lordship of Christ over every area of life—the womb as well as the university seminar room” (p. 182).

If one could ask for anything more from this book, it would be on the subject of Frank (AKA Franky Schaeffer). As Francis Schaeffer’s son has aged, he has increasingly distanced himself from his father’s legacy. First, Frank converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. More significantly, he wrote thinly disguised novels about his family life that were unflattering to his father and then made a massive turn left politically, ultimately supporting Barack Obama despite his laissez faire policies on abortion. One suspects this topic was left alone for two reasons. The first is that, as I wrote above, this book feels like an authorized biography with the family’s full cooperation. They probably did not want this story to include the later years of Frank Schaeffer. The second is that the book very likely neared completion during the time of Frank’s increasing heterodoxy. Regardless, readers hungry for more on this front should look to Os Guinness’s powerful rejoinder to Frank in the journal Books and Culture (March 1, 2008; available at http:// www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/marapr/1.32.html).

Duriez’s book is an important contribution to Schaeffer scholarship and will challenge those who have portrayed an interesting Schaeffer with a unique voice who morphs into a conventional Christian rightist over time. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life deserves a wide readership and may well be the standard in the field for some time to come.

Hunter Baker is the author of The End of Secularism

Another Run at the “Dominionist” Meme

In my last post, I rejected the contention by Michelle Goldberg and others that evangelical leaders such as Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are significantly influenced by the aims of the tiny Christian Reconstructionism movement.  I tried to make the point that CR has a negligible political influence on evangelicals and that it is not honest to view evangelical office holders and candidates in the light of CR’s aims.  The entire thing, I think, is a tar baby sort of trap in which evangelicals are supposed to come out of their corner talking very seriously about Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism and giving legitimacy to those who have tried to raise it as an issue.

There is a simpler way to get at this thing.  I’ll go ahead and concede to Michelle Goldberg and Ryan Lizza that they are correct in their assumption that it is nervous-making to have someone with different ideas and values than one’s own running for political office.  This raises the spectre of having that person gain power and perhaps make policies with which one would disagree.  But the simple truth is that we are all in this position all the time.

The University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock once noted that he had some concerns about the Christian Coalition gaining political power.  He quickly added that he would be equally concerned about any group with an ideological agenda (such as certain types of feminists or environmentalists) gaining power.  The simple fact is that power is a feature of politics and it is unpleasant to lose and have someone else use power to impose upon you.  This is very much the situation many have been through in the past two years.  A great many people feel that a nationalized health care system would have disastrous effects upon our society.  Nevertheless, they have had to suffer through it because the side that wanted to enact such legislation won the election convincingly.

And here’s the thing . . . It doesn’t matter what Barack Obama’s motive was in pushing for national health care.  It doesn’t matter if he had a religious conviction, a secular principle, a sentimental attachment to the idea, or a desire to be the first Democrat to ever achieve such a thing.  He gained power through politics and enacted his agenda.

There is no difference in anything Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or any other American officeholder might do.  Indeed, the likelihood is great that any laws they might enact would be far less intrusive than one mandating that every American purchase health insurance.

Wringing Hands Over Dominionism

Michelle Goldberg has a column up at the aptly named Daily Beast letting us all know that we really need to worry about something called “Dominionism” which supposedly prevails among Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and folks who support their campaigns.  Reinhold Niebuhr once warned of the dangers of religious illiteracy.  Here we have exhibit A.

Goldberg claims Bachmann and Perry are “deeply associated” with this “theocratic strain” of Christian fundamentalism.  Yes, they are probably so deeply associated with it that neither one of them has ever heard of R.J. Rushdoony (whom Goldberg tags as the father of this theocratic movement).

I have been part of organizations of Christian conservatives for many years and can assure Ms. Goldberg that Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism (making Hebraic law obligatory upon the broader society) exert very little influence.  In fact, I think I can probably argue empirically that Rushdoony has captured the attention of many more liberal reporters with an axe to grind than it has evangelicals.  For those of us who spend so much time thinking about political theology as to even have heard of CR, it is primarily a novelty.  To view standard issue evangelicals in the same light as Christian Reconstructionists would be like taking rank and file Democrats and comparing them to the most extreme and exotic atheistic socialists.

The overwhelming majority position of Christians around the world is that forced religion is a stench in the nostrils of a holy God.  Instead, Christians give their money to sustain people called missionaries.  We support their efforts to persuade those who don’t believe in Jesus Christ that he is the son of God and that they should enter into a relationship with him.  If those people subsequently refuse to believe in Jesus, missionaries pray for them and move on to other people.  Those engaged by missionaries join churches or just keep on doing what they were doing before.  It’s actually a pretty non-threatening business.  This is the Christian idea Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would endorse, not some fever dream of journalists hoping to bring down candidates for office.

Now, is it true that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would like to get elected and attempt to pass some of their aspirations for the good society into law?  Certainly.  This is a process called politics.  It is a feature of democracies.  And I suspect what Perry and Bachmann would like to do is reduce the size of government, which, incidentally, is not all that great a danger to individual freedom.

Of course, both are pro-life and would like to protect unborn children from being killed in the womb.  If that position is so extreme as to warrant exclusion from the political process and raving condemnations in print . . . well, in that case I’m afraid I can’t do much to help.

 

The Decline of the American Magazine

Suffering from information overload and tired of the sessions in which I would find myself exhausted from surfing too many sources on the web, I made a retro-style decision.  I subscribed to Time.

Newsweek was gone, but Time was still standing.  I assumed it was because Time was still Time.  Besides, I’d read a biography of Henry Luce (Time‘s founder) and was sentimental for his greatest creation.  Here, in one place, I would have an overview of the news fit to print.  It would be fairly objective and would adequately cover the bases.

The experiment has been a failure.  I have not especially enjoyed my subscription.  I do not feel better informed than I was.  What I have basically achieved is a greater sense of the opinions of Fareed Zakaria, Rana Foroohar, Joe Klein, and Mark Halperin.

Thanks to Time, I recently learned from a “constitutional expert” that we shouldn’t worry about the health insurance mandate because the states have been mandating auto insurance for decades. (Federalism, anyone?  Not a key feature of the document, I suppose.)

It has also come to my attention that the Tea Party was responsible for the troubled debt deal because they wouldn’t tolerate tax increases. (Neither did Barack Obama when he controlled both chambers of Congress and could have had his way.)

Finally, I have discovered that the debt compromise has actually legislated inequality because it will reduce government jobs and entitlements.  (I had not realized the government was supposed to make us equal through the rewarding of government jobs and entitlements.)

No, I don’t think I have time for Time, anymore.

P.S. Whatever you do, please don’t go back and look at past issues such as those from the 1950′s.  It’s just too depressing.

How Newt Gingrich Has Been Underappreciated

This is not an endorsement, but rather an attempt to put Newt Gingrich in context.

Perhaps because of his relentless (and ultimately successful) efforts to gain the House of Representatives for the Republicans in 1994, Speaker Gingrich has been thought of and portrayed as the most partisan of partisans. It would be wrong to think of him that way.

Newt Gingrich has always been a man interested in ideas. He is not especially interested in serving an interest group population. What he really wants to do — and you can see this in his policy books, speeches, and even in his novels(!) — is to find innovative solutions to long-standing problems. When Andrei Cherny, a speechwriter for President Clinton, published The Next Deal, a book on government for the 21st century, Gingrich was quick to offer praise for the portions with which he could agree and to encourage everyone interested in public policy to read it.

One might also remember the brief surge of interest in Alvin Toffler’s books, such as Future Shock and The Third Wave, when Speaker Gingrich endorsed them. He has always been forward-looking and ambitious for the well-being of the nation.

Selfishly, I’d like to see him continue on in the primary election if only so as to hear him talk about solutions. That is his strong suit. Perhaps some future president will invest him with a cabinet office or a commission where he can put his estimable qualities to work.

Is Making Money Evil, Harry Reid?

I was listening to news radio and heard an update in which the senate majority leader Harry Reid gave his interpretation of events on the debt ceiling negotiation. The part that really got my attention was where he insisted that further committee work would go after those “millionaires and billionaires.”

I wondered, “What is he really saying?” Let’s begin with millionaires and billionaires. Is Reid charging them with having committed some evil? If a person had made a lot of money by force or fraud, then I would agree that disapproval and punishment might be merited. Can we confidently say that rich people, as a class, have committed evils which make them suitable subjects of a public official’s desire to punish?

Why is he so angry? Why does he make these people sound like bad people? Is it the fact that they have quite a bit of money? I suspect he does, too. Indeed, it has been noted that Reid has become a somewhat wealthy man while holding office. Does he impute ill motives or actions to himself by virtue of his possession of resources well above the average?

What if we do think that having a lot of wealth is a sign of moral weakness? Perhaps we believe that having much more money than is needed to live (even live comfortably) represents a bad choice. Even if we think that, does that mean we invest the government with the moral right to appropriate that wealth as needed so as to operate without hard debates about limits on spending? Maybe our only right is the right to have our own opinion of how wealthy people should spend their money.

I think Harry Reid needs to think more about why he’s so morally exercised. Follow the conclusions of that anger and maybe we’ll get down to basic principles. Once we get there we can have a legitimate discussion.

Getting the Old Testament (Or the Hebrew Scriptures)

As I have stated before, I became a Christian in college. My faith has always been very much a New Testament faith. Though people mistake me for a theologian because I study religion and politics, I am far from seminary-qualified. The Old Testament has often been a stumbling block for me. I delved into it on occasion and walked away shaken. My attitude became that I can accept all the wildness of the Old Testament because I have Jesus, who brings it along in his wake.

For the past several months, I have returned to the Old Testament. This time something seems to have changed. I have been able to stay with it night after night and reading straight through. I have just finished the long, sad story of Israel’s kings. It is fascinating to see how God warned the people about kings, but acceded to their request. At one point, I calculated the number of kings of Israel or Judah whom God judged righteous. The percentage was low.

Though David was the best, even he failed significantly and spectacularly. Most of the good things that happened in David’s life occurred before he became king. My conclusion upon reading all of Kings and Chronicles is that God gave Israel its kings, but the whole sad history was only a prelude to an unexpected fulfillment. Israel’s kings failed. But God would give them a true king who could and would bear the real cost of ruling. The true king is Jesus. I’m not a theologian, but this story arc helps me understand what the Reformers meant when they insisted on reading the Old Testament with Jesus in mind.