True Legacy of Francis Schaeffer.

[etexas]

Firstly, I placed this under Philosophy as FS viewed himself to a certain degree, as a Christian Philosopher. (If any of you mighty Mods object my feelings will not be hurt if you do move it.) OK, my question is this Brethren: When I was new in the faith, I read a good bit of FS, his books helped me sort out a lot of things. I have not read much of his stuff in a long time, in my time as a PB member I have heard both positive things about the man as well as critical. In short I would like to explore the legacy of Schaeffer, both the positive and critical.

 

[jogri17]

read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I will always remember Francis Schaeffer as an evangelist who studied the contemporary culture (especially the 'leading edges' of it) in order to be able to speak to his generation. His own testimony of this method was that of love for the unbeliever. In other words, he believed and practiced that in order to speak to unbelievers, one must love them enough to learn the language they speak, to understand the thought-forms that shaped their world view, and then patiently, lovingly, to take the roof off (expose the inconsistency) of those thought-forms and paradigms.

I do not believe that he was logically rigorous, or always consistent in his method. I do believe his love for the unbeliever to be the most commendable portion of his "legacy".

 

[RamistThomist]

Positive: he put his money where his mouth is. He took culture seriously. Didn't retreat from the battle; took evangelism seriously.

Negatives: his son; he wasn't really a good philosopher, his apologetics isn't the strongest method.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Read this post for a comparison between Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony:

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Francis Schaeffer did much good, but I believe Dr. Rushdoony's legacy is much greater, as he did not avoid the "hard sayings" of Scripture, which is something that many of Francis Schaeffer's greatest admirers often do.

 

[RamistThomist]

Read this post for a comparison between Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony:

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Francis Schaeffer did much good, but I believe Dr. Rushdoony's legacy is much greater, as he did not avoid the "hard sayings" of Scripture, which is something that many of Francis Schaeffer's greatest admirers often do.

I thought about posting that.

JW: In the book, you discuss an incident at L’Abri when your father walked in on you having sex in the nude with the woman who later became your wife. He just kind of walks away from it. Some evangelicals are going to wonder, didn’t Francis Schaeffer lecture his son on premarital sex?

FS: They may shake their heads in disbelief. But my dad didn’t take a moralistic judgmental angle. If it had been a L’Abri student, he wouldn’t have said anything. It’s not that he wouldn’t express opinions on sexuality, but Dad was just not that kind of judgmental person. He had a very strong moral chord but not in terms of a church-lady kind of response to that sort of situation with a teenager.

Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.

 

[py3ak]

I read through the first two volumes in of the five-volume collected works set. It was mostly an exercise in patience. I did appreciate his gentle spirit in dealing with unbelievers, and some of his anecdotes were entertaining. He also had some good material on the cities of refuge. But when I got to the end of v.2 I breathed a sigh of relief and told myself I had read enough and never needed to read another line.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I read through the first two volumes in of the five-volume collected works set. It was mostly an exercise in patience. I did appreciate his gentle spirit in dealing with unbelievers, and some of his anecdotes were entertaining. He also had some good material on the cities of refuge. But when I got to the end of v.2 I breathed a sigh of relief and told myself I had read enough and never needed to read another line.

That sounds interesting; what does he say about the cities of refugee.

 

[py3ak]

He takes them as types of Christ and had some interesting references to the Jewish practices concerning maintaining the roads leading to them, and so forth.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

He takes them as types of Christ and had some interesting references to the Jewish practices concerning maintaining the roads leading to them, and so forth.

Gary DeMar says that the cities of refugee show that it is the state's job to maintain the roads. I agree.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think Schaeffer was making any points concerning the civil application of the cities of refuge.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I don't think Schaeffer was making any points concerning the civil application of the cities of refuge.

That figures. Gary North once said that although Francis Schaeffer wrote a book entitled How Shall We Then Live?, the only problem was that he never really answered the question himself.

 

[py3ak]

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, when I prepared a sermon on the cities of refuge I also neglected to mention any civil application, taking those passages in their redemptive-historical application. That was where I particularly appreciated Schaeffer's remarks about how the cities of refuge though typifying Christ very remarkably, nonetheless fall far short of exhausting the reality.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, when I prepared a sermon on the cities of refuge I also neglected to mention any civil application, taking those passages in their redemptive-historical application. That was where I particularly appreciated Schaeffer's remarks about how the cities of refuge though typifying Christ very remarkably, nonetheless fall far short of exhausting the reality.

I think Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry argue that cities of refugee are not for today. Don't know why though? I think they would argue that the law just grants protection to manslayers nowadays.

 

[Narnian]

I would say if you want to read Francis Schaeffer you might be better off reading Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. I believe she takes much of what Schaeffer said and puts it into a more structured presentation. She adds rigor that is missing in Schaeffer'sooks.

 

[jwithnell]

It is difficult to take Mr. Schaeffer outside of the context of L'Abri and evangelism -- radical hospitality was at the core of what he was about and bringing "honest answers to honest questions."

After reading a lot of philosophy, and many liberal and neo-orthodox theologians, I was introduced to the Schaeffer books and came to Christ as a result. He brought God's truth to the questions that had been surging in me, and did so in a straight-forward way that was neither condescending nor making things "intellectual" by twisting God's truth into nebulous, complicated extremes (my take on folks like Martin Buber).

We incorporated the How Should We Then Live book and film series into our home schooling one year, and re-watched Whatever Happened to the Human Race. Although some of the examples might have seemed dated, the guy was right on. It is almost eerie to see how society marched down the paths he warned were coming.

 

[RamistThomist]

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

 

[DMcFadden]

Post #2 and #4 capture my attitude on FS. However, there will always be a great fondness in my heart for him and for his impact. I was a teenager when his books began to tumble out into the evangelical world in the late 60s. Escape from Reason was used mightily in my life to help me see the need for having a Christian worldview. It was instrumental in my attending an evangelical Christian college to "learn more" about how our faith can stand up against the assaults of this world.

Regardless of his faults, I will also remember him with fondness for his willingness to engage the culture on its own terms, for his contention that Christianity is a reasonable coherent and consistent faith, and for his quixotic tilting at windmills for a heavenly cause.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

For me the highlight of his legacy is his approach to the arts, as an outworking of the creativity impressed upon man made in the image of the Creator.

I'm looking forward to this book coming out soon:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/francis-schaeffer-authentic-life-colin-duriez-31374/

 

[etexas]

read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.

This brings about another question for me: Schaeffer was MUCH admired by Fundamentalist, in point of fact more than a few of his detractors have called FS a Fundamentalist in his own right. What was this "love affair" the Fundamentalist had with Schaeffer, and is there any fairness in the Fundamentalist label which some attached to FS?

 

[RamistThomist]

read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.

This brings about another question for me: Schaeffer was MUCH admired by Fundamentalist, in point of fact more than a few of his detractors have called FS a Fundamentalist in his own right. What was this "love affair" the Fundamentalist had with Schaeffer, and is there any fairness in the Fundamentalist label which some attached to FS?

Schaeffer belonged to an explicitly fundamentalist denomination that reared itself as an alternative to more historically Reformed presbyterian churches.

 

[RamistThomist]

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

Yes, I was surprised even to hear Doug Kelly quote Rush in a lecture on RTS iTunes (it was one about Christology, and he was quoting Rush to show how the denial of Christ's deity leads to Statism).

I fear for the churches and institutions which have shunned such prophetic voices as Rush and Greg Bahnsen in favour of the disastrous ethics of humanism.

 

[etexas]

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

How so?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

How so?

They are afraid you might start advocating EXPLICITLY BIBLICAL solutions to social problems. I am amazed to hear Presbyterians, every time you quote an OT text and apply it to modern society, say "that was only for Israel as a Theocracy". Little wonder the Reformed remain on the back of the cultural bus; that is exactly where they want to be.

 

[RamistThomist]

I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

How so?

Little more specific?

Schaeffer isn't a scholar. He made no pretense at being one. Rush is. Rush has written over fifty books in 40 years. His books, a few exceptions here and there, have footnotes from a wide range of material, follow a rigorous logic (even when faulty) and demonstrate a competent grasp of history and philosophy.

Schaeffer was arguing with hippies. I am not being flippant. He is a good guy. He was the first "apologist" I read, then I found Bahnsen and Van til.

Schaeffer is like a .22 pistol. A good gun. I like .22s.

Rush is like a .45. A little harder to handle, but bringing more power.

Please, I write this with respect to Schaeffer.

 

[etexas]

Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.

How so?

Little more specific?

Schaeffer isn't a scholar. He made no pretense at being one. Rush is. Rush has written over fifty books in 40 years. His books, a few exceptions here and there, have footnotes from a wide range of material, follow a rigorous logic (even when faulty) and demonstrate a competent grasp of history and philosophy.

Schaeffer was arguing with hippies. I am not being flippant. He is a good guy. He was the first "apologist" I read, then I found Bahnsen and Van til.

Schaeffer is like a .22 pistol. A good gun. I like .22s.

Rush is like a .45. A little harder to handle, but bringing more power.

Please, I write this with respect to Schaeffer.

THank you! That helps! I rather like the pistol caliber analogy!

 

[HaigLaw]

Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.

What was your point in quoting this excerpt from the Whitehead interview of Franky?

 

[RamistThomist]

Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.

What was your point in quoting this excerpt from the Whitehead interview of Franky?

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.