ARTICLES
Q TALKS
DISCOVER Q
EVENTS
All Q Events
Q Nashville 2014
Q Session | Innovate
Q Cast
RESOURCES
Books
Studies
Bible
Church Leaders
Speaking
PARTICIPATE
Praxis Accelerator
Host Conversations
Church
Business
Education
Social Sector
Arts + Entertainment
Science + Tech
Government
Media
Cities
Gospel
Restorers
Tweet
Church
The Mark of a Schaefferite
The Lasting Legacy of Francis Schaeffer
by
Barry Hankins
Others profiled in the Q Legacy Series include
Carl F.H. Henry,
Fred Rogers
and
C.S. Lewis
.
-----
In March of 2005, World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky asked,
“Who’s the major figure behind the election and re-election of George W. Bush?”
His answer? Francis Schaeffer. Olasky went on to argue that Schaeffer’s film,
How Should We Then Live?,
and book,
A Christian Manifesto
, helped push many evangelicals into political action, convincing them that if Christians did not get involved “Western civilization would go down the drain.”
Newsweek
religion editor Kenneth Woodward meant pretty much the same thing when he referred to Schaeffer in 1982 as “The Guru of Fundamentalism.” Woodward coined that phrase in the wake of Schaeffer’s book
A Christian Manifesto
, which was a blueprint for
Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority
and other organizations that make up what we now call the Christian Right. Ironically, Schaeffer’s first coverage in a major news magazine came in 1960 when
TIME
did a brief article on him entitled
“Mission to Intellectuals.”
Many in the secular media might think it logical that Schaeffer was both “guru of fundamentalism” and “the major figure behind the election of George Bush.” But how could those be reconciled with Schaeffer as a missionary to intellectuals?
The answer lies in Schaeffer’s having been a complex individual with a wacky son. Schaeffer began his career in the 1930s as a fundamentalist pastor. His primary aims were to evangelize the lost and militantly defend orthodox Protestant theology. He spoke often of the need to separate from theological liberals, sinful culture, and even from more moderate Christians who would not separate. One of his mentors was fundamentalist firebrand
Carl McIntire
, one of the most irascible fundamentalists of the 20th century.
But a funny thing on the way to his mid-life. Schaeffer and his family moved to Europe as missionaries. There, he found Europeans not much impressed with American fundamentalist heresy hunting. Rather, the teenagers Schaeffer’s kids brought home wanted to know if Christianity made any sense intellectually. Schaeffer responded by breaking with his fundamentalist brethren back in the States and launching
L’Abri
, a community in the Swiss Alps where he and his wife Edith provided Christian hospitality to young people from Europe and eventually America. Their goal at L’Abri was to love and argue young people into the Kingdom of God. At first many of these young people were disillusioned countercultural types, proto-hippies in search of truth (or a good high) they could not find in modernity’s consumer culture. Overtime, however, as Schaeffer’s lectures were turned into books, L’Abri became a pilgrimage site for American evangelicals.
Schaeffer’s first three books made him an Christian celebrity.
The God Who is There
,
Escape from Reason
, and
He is There and is not Silent
became known collectively as the trilogy. In these Schaeffer provided a pop interpretation of western intellectual history, explaining in Jeremiad fashion how a Christian culture gave way to the secularism and despair that marked modern existential thought. More important than the details of his analysis was the fact that an evangelical was making such an argument at all. American evangelicalism in the fifties and sixties suffered from a fundamentalist hangover that included the very separatism Schaeffer had advocated back in his fundamentalist days. Schaeffer hit the Christian college lecture circuit arguing that rather than avoiding all things secular Christians should study ideas, films, works of art, and even rock n roll. They should be conversant in the ways of the world in order to present a compelling and coherent defense of the faith. This was exhilarating news for many evangelicals who had grown up being taught that the best way to witness for Christ was to avoid all things secular, especially dancing, drinking, and going to movies.
[For more on the cultural influences leading to this way of thinking, check out
Jesus and Gin: Evangelicalism, The Roaring Twenties, and Today's Culture Wars
by Barry Hankins.]
Schaeffer’s career took another dramatic turn in 1974 when his twenty-two year-old son Franky talked him into making their first film,
Whatever Happened to the Human Race?
. Franky was an aspiring artist, and by his own admission an undisciplined, rambunctious, and spoiled zealot—“crazy for God,” as he puts it today. Franky’s view of himself is corroborated by those who lived at L’Abri. The film translated Schaeffer’s history of western decline into documentary form and was mildly successful. More important than the film itself was the shift in Schaeffer’s tone. Whereas previously he had couched his message in the form of Christian apologetics that would lead to successful evangelism, in the first film he began to identify the enemy of Christian civilization—“secular humanism.”
Moreover, Schaeffer began to call for the defeat of secular humanists, not their conversion. This message was amplified in the second film in the series. With Franky once again at the helm and future U.S. Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop
on board, the film did more than any single event to turn evangelicals toward a pro-life movement that had been almost exclusively Catholic.
Essentially, Franky pushed his father from cultural engagement to culture war. Now known as Frank instead of Franky, he acknowledges all this in his recent autobiography
Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back
. The final step in Francis Schaeffer’s transformation was
A Christian Manifesto
. The book was virtually authored by evangelical lawyer and activist John Whitehead and appeared just before Whitehead’s own The Second American Revolution. Together these two books played a major role in shaping the Christian Right.
Given all the above Schaeffer is remembered today as a major influence on Christian Right culture warriors as well as Christian scholars. The culture warriors like his later career, directed as it was by Franky. The scholars, by contrast, are inspired by Schaeffer’s L’Abri period and his triology.
To say there is tension between the world of Christian Right culture war and the world of Christian scholarship, particularly on Schaeffer's legacy, is something of an understatement. Many Christian scholars still credit him with helping move American evangelicalism toward cultural engagement, especially intellectually. At the same time many of these Christian scholars, and many who lived at L’Abri before the first film, believe that Schaeffer’s later career as a culture warrior was an unfortunate to mistake. Many Christian Right activists, on the other hand, have little use for the scholarly world of ideas unless those ideas can be put in the service of defeating the forces Schaeffer identified as secular humanism.
[An expanded discussion of Schaeffer's legacy can be found in
Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America
by Barry Hankins.]
As is often the case with influential, complex people, Schaeffer’s legacy is contested. There is even a third group of evangelicals who were influenced by neither his intellectual work nor his Christian Right activism. Instead, they look to books such as
The Mark of a Christian
and cherish the model of L’Abri with its emphasis on Christian love and community. Whichever Schaefferite influence one claims, the argument here is that the diversity of his legacy, and the tension it arouses, makes Schaeffer second only to Billy Graham in terms of evangelical importance in the late 20th century.
-------
Have you interacted with any of Schaeffer's work? What is your impression of him? How would you describe Schaeffer's legacy on the Christian movement?
Tweet
Comments
Caleb
I spent two weeks earlier this year at L'abri's England branch during a three and a half month backpacking stint through Europe. I would fall into your third group simply by default. I have little exposure to his works but do cherish L'abri's intimacy, work ethic, and intellectual stimulation which includes thought-provoking cultural engagement.
Jared
Having interacted mostly with Schaeffer's early work, including "Pollution and the Death of Man," I confess I was unaware of his legacy in also shaping part of the culture wars we deal with today. I felt as though his work shows a picture of a man who desired to see God's kingdom brought to the modern world in a fuller sense than almost any other writer, regardless of which side of a given political/cultural argument that might fall. For example, particularly with "Pollution and the Death of Man," Schaeffer saw a desperate need for evangelicals to take up the cause of environmentalism alongside the hippies of the day and redeem it, all the while sharing the gospel with them in that particular context. He was absolutely cutting edge with that book, publishing it only 6 months or so after the first earth day, and smacks of liberalism to many of the religious right, even today.
Mike
Francis Schaeffer was a towering figure for many evangelicals in the second half of the twentieth century. This reflection provides a fascinating chronology and description of his influence. Hankins is quite correct that Schaeffer appealed to different groups of people for vastly different reasons and that legacy lives on today. People as diverse as Os Guiness, Chuck Colson, Tim LaHaye, and Nancy Pearcey were influenced by L'Abri or Schaeffer's writings.
Notwithstanding the many excellent insights in this article, there are several assertions that need a response or rebuttal.
1) The quote "Schaeffer began to call for the defeat of secular humanists, not their conversion" is highly misleading. Nowhere, to my knowledge, did Schaeffer ever renounce his commitment to witness and desire for the conversion of unbelievers. (If Hankins has evidence to the contrary, it needs to be shown.) Hankins presents a false dichotomy here and misrepresents a passion of Schaeffer's entire life. Shaeffer longed for the conversion of others, all the while growing more aware of the pervasive societal harm wrought by secular humanism. Can't Schaeffer champion both?
2) "Essentially, Franky pushed his father from cultural engagement to culture war." This is another Hankin's quote ... and highly reductionistic at that. As Hankins rightly states, Schaeffer advocated cultural engagement for at least the final three decades of his life. But he increasingly became aware of the ideological battle which secular humanism presented. WIth engagement sometimes comes conflict, and Christian are not called to capitulate whenever competing ideas to the Gospel or biblical truth arise. Defending truth and demonstrating respect toward people are both essential. Schaeffer modeled that with full conviction. Again, Hankins presents a false dichotomy. To label Schaeffer with the cheap and misleading phrase "culture warrior" is unfair.
3) Finally, Franky Schaeffer has repeatedly undermined his own credibility in his posthumous slander of his father. People who knew both father and son, some of whom I know, are overwhelming in their description of a spoiled, rebellious, disrespectful, and self-seeking son. A particularly revealing summary can be found here by Guinness:
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2008/marapr/1.32.html.
Franky Schaeffer should not be seen as a credible voice to redefine his father and smear his name and influence. Francis had plenty of flaws, as we all do. But his positive legacy is enormous and millions of evangelicals worldwide live in his debt. Hankins has difficulty coming to this conclusion.
Alan
Much of what Hankin says appears to have some accuracy in describing Dr. Schaeffer and his legacy, but it is unfortunate that misrepresentations of Dr. Schaeffer are unfortunate. For example, Dr. Schaeffer was never inclined to label people or groups. This tended to make impersonal the person represented, as does Hankin in his discussion by attempting to parse the person of Dr. Schaeffer into convenient categories for his analysis.
In agreement to Mike above I will add a couple of items:
1. Dr. Schaeffer clearly understood that no one is argued into the kingdom of God. It may be more accurate to state that "he took the questions and objections of young people seriously when few others were". Arguments may be involved and even be intense and long, but with respect of the person and in love. Yes, he would take more risks in differing with others' arguments in an age as so often today nothing seems worth arguing about lest we offend someone.
2. He would never say that he supported "the Christian right". It seems to me that he was interested in being faithful to Christ and his word, not in following a political ideology that happened to use Christian euphemisms or images to gain power.
3. Dr. Schaeffer helped me to see life as a whole. The intellectual life and the life in community with others are all part of the total person, as were (and are) the rest of the "pieces" of a person (as if there are such things).
4. To use the label "Schaefferite" is surely demeaning both to Dr. Schaeffer and those who have been helped by him. It perhaps reveals the agenda of the author. It is the kind of language used by those wanting to stir up discord (talk radio maybe), not those searching for explanations.
Bill
Some people become so infatuated with a persona that even the facts won't dissuade them, and the two comments above indicate the truth of that statement. Hankins doesn't seem to be angry or malicious. He isn't trying to tear down the legacy of Schaeffer. He is clearly writing as a historian. Dr. Hankins bio shows that he is a learned historian and Schaeffer biographer. His historical analysis isn't discredited simply because Schaeffer "helped you see life as a whole" or you know someone who knows someone who knows his son Frank.
Don
Was turned on to Schaeffer back in 1979-- I just showed "How should we..." to a group of high school students and last year to a group of adults.
Bottom line for me is simply this: As a follower of Christ-- I am so so thankful for Schaeffer's love for truth and his living out the truth--
Although we have his writings-- I often wish he was around right now to give insight into the happenings of our world.
Just found your site--
Thanks
Don
Alan
Sorry Bill, it's tough to communicate clearly in typeset without jumping to conclusions isn't it? Perhaps I have done so regarding the learned scholar. You possibly have done so regarding those whom you address. There's no need to carry on this type of conversation. So thanks for your insights for an infatuated Schaefferite.
Alan
Sorry Bill, it's tough to communicate clearly in typeset without jumping to conclusions isn't it? Perhaps I have done so regarding the learned scholar. You possibly have done so regarding those whom you address. There's no need to carry on this type of conversation. So thanks for your insights for an infatuated Schaefferite.
Steve Hodgson
I recently found an old Shaeffer book, 'the Church in the 21st Century' in a pile of books donated to a Christian college in Vanuatu... had read some of his earlier philosophical apologetic works especially around his understanding of Genesis and had found it helpful for where i was as a young man. As i read this recent find 'The church in the 21st Century', i am struck by his foresight and reading of culture and of the church in general. I read his 40 year old ideas and am struck by the similarities with the discussions in authors such as Alan Hirsch, Ed Stetzer, Mike Frost, Scott McKnight etc. His insights into the direction the church was heading and its short-fallings and the direction of society are brilliant. My only disappointment is that church leaders of past generations did not heed warnings such as these earlier. We seem to be having the same conversations today that Shaeffer tried to ignite 40 years ago. One wonders where the church would find itself today if it had of heard rightly and taken seriously some of the insights of men such as Shaeffer from previous generations.
Gene Chase
In February, 1965, Shaeffer spoke at MIT in a series of 3 lectures that he then went on to deliver at Wheaton College and elsewhere, and later published as The God Who Is There. A small number of philosophy majors came to hear him in addition to those of the various Christian fellowships of MIT, Harvard, and elsewhere. The philosophers were sufficiently impressed that the second lecture needed a larger room, and the third lecture needed a still larger room.
We MIT Christians were grateful to theologian Harold O. J. "Joe" Brown (then minister to students at Park Street Church) for bringing Shaeffer to our campus. Shaeffer opened dialog between Christians and philosophers on our campus.
Chuck
Francis Schaeffer had a profound influence on me during my college days in the 70's, pointing me towards a richer intellectual heritage in the reformation in general and C. Van Til in particular. I like Mike's summary above because I don't think most evangelicals understand the theological underpinnings of Schaffer.
God has greatly used Schaeffer in countless lives. The religious right hasn't quite gotten it right and needs more foundational understanding of how their faith applies to culture and politics. Schaeffer would still be a good start for someone to broaden their horizons, and on those who have built on his work.
Everette Hatcher
Francis Schaeffer was a great Christian Philosopher.
Comments are now closed
ALSO IN CHURCH
Act Like a Business, Expect Customers
by Amy Simpson
Why Using "He" in Worship Could Be Hurting More People Than You Think
by Erin S. Lane
"We Are All Rwandans"
by Christopher Heuertz