The Three Phases of Schaeffer’s Ministry (Part 3)

Francis Schaeffer stands as one of the most influential thinkers and teachers in modern Evangelicalism. His influence, though not often visible, permeates many modern conversations and modern teachers. He has left an indelible mark on American Evangelicalism. To understand his life and the development of this thought, however, it is helpful to frame him across three phases. Phase one was his separatist years, where a hyper-fundamentalism caused him to focus on separating from anyone who differed from him. Phase two was represented by his European years, where a focus on evangelism and “honest answers to honest questions” propelled him into open-handed ministry and partnership. Finally, we’ve come to phase three: the Activist Years. During these years Schaeffer seemed burdened and even consumed by the culture wars in America. These years of Schaeffer’s ministry come with mixed reception.

Returning to America

As Schaeffer’s popularity grew he was often found touring the United States giving lectures on apologetics, culture, and the Christian faith. Once in the States there was a “reemergence of his fundamentalist voice,” says Barry Hankins ( Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America, 136). The 1970s saw an explosion of culture wars and Schaeffer was ready to dive in. In fact, he compared them quite easily to the wars he had previously been engaged in with theological liberalism. He wrote defenses of literal Creationism, inerrancy of Scripture, and – once again- separatism. In 1974 he challenged the International Congress on World Evangelization, which met in Lausanne, to recognize and renounce those churches and Christians who did not hold to a “full view of Scripture.” Separatism, he argued, was massively important for the purity of the church and the maintenance of a clear gospel message. Schaeffer contended that we needed orthodoxy in our doctrine and in community, and that should include who we cooperate with.

Nowhere is practicing the truth more important than in the area of religious cooperation. If I say that Christianity is really eternal truth, and the liberal theologian is wrong – so wrong that he is teaching what is contrary to the Word of God – and then on any basis (including for the sake of evangelism) I am willing publicly to act as though that man’s religious position is the same as my own, I have destroyed the practice of truth which my generation can expect from me and which it will demand of me if I am to have credibility. (“Two Contents, Two Realities,” in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 3. 410-411).

Christians should partner only with those who held to the inherency of Scripture. A key difference for Schaeffer this time around, however, was that those with whom he disagreed were often Evangelical brothers. This made separation more difficult and Schaeffer struggled with consistency in his separatism. Perhaps nowhere is Schaeffer’s inconsistency more clearly seen than in his political alliances.

Schaeffer and Politics

It was in the 70s that Schaeffer’s involvement in culture wars began to take on a political tone. He wasn’t just interested in the Battle for the Bible, he was interested in the battle for the Christian base of morality in American life. He began to work in film, thanks to his son Franky, and speak to issues of American history and current political trends. He partnered with John Whitehead in the publication of, and subsequent film on, A Christian Manifesto. He developed a friendship with Congressman Jack Kemp and received invitations to speak at political luncheons, and was even a guest at the White House of then President Gerald Ford. 

His desire to maintain purity became particularly difficult as he engaged in the battle over abortion. In A Christian Manifesto he ardently defended the Moral Majority against all criticisms. What he said in public and private about the Religious Right, however, were different and he had real concerns. He had concerns about Jerry Falwell’s tone and approach. He had concerns about confusion between love of God and love of country – a concern about theocracy. But despite the private concerns, Schaeffer was regarded as a part of the Moral Majority. He was their intellectual leader.

In addition to his partnership with the Moral Majority, Schaeffer’s work with C. Everrett Koop on Whatever Happened to the Human Race? was not limited to engaging Christians. There were “co-belligerents” that he seemed equally as motivated to partner with: Mormons, Roman Catholics, and even unbelievers. The separatism he championed was not always easy to maintain. 

Assessments of Schaeffer’s Activism

While many supported Schaeffer’s work in the political arena, and while his son Franky was certainly spurring him on, there were others who expressed concern. Long-time friend and disciple Bill Edgar cautioned Schaeffer on his alliance with Falwell. In conversation with Barry Hankins, Edgar notes:

A lot of us worried about this because it seemed as though he was falling into a default American right-wing conservatism, which we didn’t recognize as the Schaeffer we had met in the sixties. (Quoted in Hankins, 204)

Schaeffer had argued throughout his ministry and writing, and particularly in How Should We Then Live?, for the necessity of a coherent Christian worldview. This was something that many feared was being lost in Schaeffer’s activism. Certainly, Jerry Fallwell did not possess such a coherent vision. Some worried that the allure of political influence was too much for even the great Francis Schaeffer to resist.

Others felt that the pull of the Republican Party meant that Schaeffer let go of some of his more progressive beliefs about the environment and race, for example. Some topics, it seemed, did not mesh well with the Republican platform of the time; and though Schaeffer had been outspoke on these matters, even publishing books on them, the deeper his relationship with the Moral Majority became the less these topics were addressed. In addition, his openness to violent resistance of the government, a view only theorized but not fully developed in A Christian Manifesto, struck some as very shocking. It appeared that the culture war was changing Francis Schaeffer.

This is perhaps most visibly seen in his interactions with two Christian historians who specialized in American history: George Marsden and Mark Noll. Marsden and Noll saw Schaeffer as confused regarding the role of Christianity in the founding of America. The three men got locked into a year-long letter writing feud that became an obsession to Schaeffer. The two historians critiqued Schaeffer pointedly, accusing him of not just bad scholarship but even of intentionally misleading others. Schaeffer’s conviction about the culture war made it impossible for him to appreciate the perspective of Noll and Marsden. As he saw it, their writing and criticism played right into the hands of the liberal humanists. Schaeffer viewed these men in the same category as those who were weak on inherency, raising further concern for those who saw Schaeffer’s activism as clouding out his other views. Members of L’Abri during those days recall he was often agitated and spent hours pouring over these letters and crafting responses. It was an obsession that took him away from other important work.

Conclusion

It’s hard to know exactly what to think of this phase of Schaeffer’s life. His concern for the authority and inerrancy of Scripture are commendable. His commitment to the cause of the unborn an important and valuable contribution to modern Evangelicalism. But the methods behind his activism and indeed some of his particular calls to action seem inconsistent with earlier views he held, and for some deeply problematic. This confusion over Schaeffer leads us to at least consider how complex he is, and in light of that how significant his impact on the Western church has been. We’ll consider that in more detail in our final post.