“For it is time for judgement to begin at the household of God.” 1 Peter 4:17a
Dr. Francis Schaeffer gave us an insightful critique of modern culture over fifty years ago in his blockbuster book, How Should We Then Live? Who would have thought that his analysis from the past would be as true today as it was in 1976 when his book was first published? The relentless pursuit of peace, prosperity, and personal gain in America appears to have reached its apex in our current society! But the question posed by Schaeffer remains–How Should We Then Live? In particular, how should we live as disciples of Jesus Christ in this self-centered age? Consider Schaeffer’s challenging words,
“As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be left alone, not to be troubled with the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city–to live one’s life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity–a life made up of things, things, and more things–a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.”
Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Now Live? 205
It is my belief that Christians everywhere should respond to this indictment of modern culture. We cannot ignore it. Perhaps as a first response, personal repentance should be manifested throughout the life of individual Christians. Rather than living only for the acquisition of personal possessions, property, and prestige, Christians should live as those who “seek first his kingdom.” (Matt. 6:33) Possessions, property, and prestige are secondary. The Apostle Peter instructs Christians that “judgement [begins] at the household of God.” (1 Pet. 4:17) These sobering words should move us to sincere repentance from the pursuit of selfish gain. Only by cleansing ourselves from our own quest after personal peace and affluence can future generations be preserved from the same malady.
Beyond that, individual churches should give a hard look at their philosophy of ministry–is it all about the growth and prosperity of the church, or is it all about the growth of Christ’s kingdom here on earth? As a church, our priorities should be in alignment with the kingdom ethics of our Lord. (cf. Matt. 5:13-16; Matt. 28:18-19; Mk. 8:34; 2 Cor. 10:3-6; 1 Tim. 5:1-25)
Moreover, we should find a strategy for living in this fallen world that is consistent with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. What should that strategy be? Here are some historic approaches: (1) We should remove ourselves into cloistered enclaves where all worldly influences are kept at a safe distance [Monasticism]. (2) We should become political revolutionaries who forcefully impose our beliefs and morals upon this fallen world [Secular Marxism]. Or, (3) We should acquiesce to secular pressures and not impose our beliefs and values upon unbelievers, but live at peace with all [Cultural Relativism]. Let me just say that I do not think retreat, revolution, or acquiescence are the proper Biblical responses.
Instead, I believe that modern culture should be thoroughly engaged by those who have a God-given remedy to the self-centeredness and prideful arrogance of this fallen world. The Lord gives us a better way! This remedy is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The ethics of God’s kingdom, therefore, should become the new standard for life in the 2020’s throughout the world. In short, God’s ways are better than man’s ways, and Christians must lead the way in bringing order to a disordered world. This is not accomplished by retreat, revolution, or acquiescence. It is accomplished by engaging the people and structures of this fallen world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. (cf. Jer. 29:4-7; Lk. 19:11-27; 1 Jn. 2:15-17)
Rev. Dr. Abraham Kuyper
Prof. Dr. Herman Bavinck
This approach of cultural engagement is traditionally called a “Reformed World and Life View.” In short, all aspects of human culture that are found in this fallen world are to be thoroughly engaged—not retreated from [in monasticism], not overthrown [in Marxism], nor acquiesced to [in relativism], but contended with [in a Reformed world and life view]. The theological world-view of Reformed Christianity seeks to boldly penetrate all spheres of human culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Historically, this view has been popularized by two dutchmen, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), and in this current era by Henry Van Til (1906-1961), Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), Chuck Colson (1931-2012), and David F. Wells (b. 1938). Other theologians–too numerous to be named–have taken-up this important theme as well. I will name some of the most helpful spokesmen in upcoming blog posts.
And so, how do we respond to Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s critique of modern culture? We respond in repentance (both personal and corporate) and by committing ourselves and our churches to thoroughly engaging the people and structures of this world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3
Dr. Francis Schaeffer
Dr. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), the well known Christian apologist, gives us a helpful analogy in discriminating between doctrinal controversies. He called it the “Plateau of Orthodoxy.” Think of a plateau–a large mountain with a flat top and steep sides. If you were to list the primary doctrines of the Christian faith and assemble them all on the top of the plateau–doctrines such as the authority and historicity of the Bible, the Trinity, the imputation of Adam’s sin to all humanity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, the deity of the Holy Spirit, etc. These doctrines are all primary to the Christian faith, and therefore are essential to Christian belief.
Since these doctrines are solidly affixed to the top of the “plateau of orthodoxy” as primary beliefs, if a person rejects any one of them it leads that person to fall off the plateau into the abyss that lies below. In essence, they fall into the pit of error. This analogy, then, helps us in showing how there are core doctrinal truths (i.e. primary doctrines) that define the essence of true Christian faith. If any one of these core doctrines is rejected, then that person falls off the “plateau of orthodoxy” into the abyss of “heterodoxy” (Gk. heteros = “differing from the norm” or “a collection of false beliefs”). Religious groups who reject the essential doctrines of Christianity can be correctly identified as “cults” in that they have “…the form of godliness, but deny its power…” (2 Timothy 3:5 [NKJV])
Moreover, secondary and tertiary doctrines need to be distinguished from the primary doctrines. Christians may disagree over secondary and tertiary doctrines (e.g. the proper subjects of baptism, the details of Christ’s return, and the use of grape juice or wine in the Lord’s Supper), but there should be no disagreement over the primary doctrines. If there is disagreement over a primary doctrine, then that person is not holding to orthodox biblical Christianity. Moreover, some Christian groups have elevated secondary or tertiary doctrines to the level of primary doctrines (e.g. differences over which day is the Sabbath, the proper mode of baptism, and whether only Psalms should be sung in worship services in contrast to singing hymns). These practices place an undue emphasis upon secondary or tertiary doctrine so the group becomes “sectarian” in nature (i.e elevating secondary doctrines to a primary level). This is an unfortunate error that causes great harm. Such groups are known as Christian “sects.”
Christians everywhere should remember that we have “one shepherd” and we are “one body.” (cf. John 10:16, 17:6-11) We can unify with one another by uplifting our primary doctrines, and show grace to one another where we differ in secondary and tertiary doctrines. In this way, we preserve the purity of the Church, while at the same time exhibit the love of God for the brethren.
* * * * * * *
Dr. Francis Schaeffer coined several other intriguing expressions that further popularized his ideas. Here is a brief collection of some of these colorful sayings with each one of them explained by individuals who had first hand knowledge of Francis Schaeffer’s ministry:
True Truth — “Schaeffer’s quaint expression ‘true truth’ is typical of the penetrating style he employed to communicate. He invented terms and images that seemed rough wood, and yet allowed this message to get through…But truth for Schaeffer went right back to the God behind all created reality, a God who is there and not silent. If God is there, then there are answers to the deep human questions. If he is not, there are no answers. There is no point in waiting at the train station if no train is coming. Truth must lead to spiritual reality.” (Colin Duriez, “Francis Schaeffer” in Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, 245)
Honest Answers to Honest Questions — Francis and Edith Schaeffer established “the L’Abri ministry in Switzerland where many young intellectuals found hospitality and ‘honest answers to honest questions.’ Through that ministry, many of Schaeffer’s guests embraced Christianity. Schaeffer was an evangelist, rather than a professional philosopher, but he had a broad knowledge of philosophy, art history, music, literature, culture, and modern theology…Schaeffer led to Christ a number of younger thinkers…who applied his insights to the academic disciplines.” And: “Schaeffer…popularized a broadly presuppositional apologetic that frequently appealed to the history of philosophy and culture. Many came to believe in Christianity through his work.” (John Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, 537, 787)
Respecting the Differences — “The open nature of Schaeffer’s inerrantist view of the Bile is demonstrated in his stance on eschatology. Though he was a thoroughgoing premillennialist, he treated this position as of secondary rather than of primary importance. His relations with fellow Christians were unaffected by disagreements about the Millennium.” (Colin Duriez, “Francis Schaeffer” in Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, 258)
A Lack of Love — “Schaeffer never abandoned his commitment to the principles of ‘the purity of the visible church,’ but by 1951 he realized that there was something profoundly wrong within the separated movement. Basically this problem was the total lack of love among many of the movement’s leaders–so much so that it became filled with hatred, bitterness, and brutal tactics which were directed not only against their modernistic opponents but increasingly against one another within the separated movement. Again it must be stressed that Schaeffer never became a modernist, nor did he abandon the positive principles which led Christians to ‘separate’ from churches which did not really affirm historic Christian orthodoxy. But the error Schaeffer discovered was grave indeed. It nearly destroyed his own faith, while it made shipwreck of the lives of many and of the separated movement as a whole. Schaeffer eventually came to the place where he realized that this was so profoundly wrong that he described it as ‘counterfeit Christianity’ and a ‘heresy of practice.'” (Lane T. Dennis, “Introduction” in Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer, 14)
Worldview Criticism — “Schaeffer believes in the unity of truth. The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, which he insisted on so strenuously, does more than simply insure doctrinal orthodoxy, as important as that is in an age that can substitute any irrational experience for religious truth. In the pages of the Bible, taken as normatively true on every level, Schaeffer finds a world view that brings together the ‘divided field of knowledge’ that characterizes the modern experience and that leaves us vulnerable to uncertainty, religious madness and despair…world-view criticism as practiced by Schaeffer actually opens up the whole range of the arts to the Christian. One does not go to a work of art to agree or disagree with it, but to understand the depths of personality that it expresses and to encounter the world view that it signifies. It involves what C.S. Lewis describes as ‘receiving’ rather than ‘using’ the work of art.” (Gene Edward Veith, “The Fragmentation and Integration of Truth” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Portaits, 34, 38)
No Little People, No Little Places — “If you grow up in an environment that conditions you to think that you are only a ‘little man,’ of no particular consequence, this idea becomes deeply ingrained in your own thinking. In this context, Francis Schaeffer’s teaching that there are ‘no little people,’ can cause an explosion in your inner self–giving you a new self-image, the courage to dream new dreams, and the strength to step out in faith to realize those dreams. The self-confidence generated by this new outlook may move you to seek recognition and importance for yourself. But Dr. Schaeffer also emphasized that there are ‘no little places.’ In other words, with God no place is unimportant, irrespective of how insignificant our world may consider it to be. And because there are ‘no little places’ with God we have reason and the strength to choose positions of seeming insignificance and powerlessness. When these two concepts are combined–that is, when the man of inner strength chooses a ‘small’ position–the result can have a deep impact on society because it is the opposite way of the world.” (Vishal Mangalwadi, “Truth and Oppression” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Portaits, 196-197)
Upper-Story Christianity — “In Schaeffer’s terms, religion was an ‘upper-story’ realm that had little to do with the ‘lower-story’ realm in which I lived, worked, and thought. Schaeffer, though, was a different bird entirely. Here was someone engaged with the arts, philosophy, and history, as I was, who insisted on relating them to Christianity. He was not simply integrating them into a nice homogenous whole–as in, ‘See how all great works of literature are really Christian as heart.’ I had heard that before, but did not really respect it much. To homogenize Christ to culture seemed to distort both. Schaeffer, though, was taking both Christ and culture seriously, setting them against each other, finding points of agreement and divergence, letting them battle it out.” (Gene Edward Veith, “The Fragmentation and Integration of Truth” in Francis A. Schaeffer: Portaits, 31)
Francis & Edith Schaeffer: They were an “impressive team” who blessed those who learned from their books, conversations, films, lectures, letters, and most of all from their hospitality.
Select Bibliography:
Dennis, Lane T., ed. Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer. Westchester, IL: Crossway Publishers, 1985.
Dennis, Lane T., ed. Francis A. Schaeffer: Portraits of the Man and His Work. Westchester, IL: Crossway Publishers, 1986.
Duriez, Colin. Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Duriez, Colin. “Francis Schaeffer” in Handbook of Evangelical Theologians. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993.
Frame, John M. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015.
“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for the decisions…most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true. When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, ‘not many men are in the room’—that is, although world views have many variations, there are not many basic world views or basic presuppositions.” (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 20)
