처음으로
esesang91.com설립 개요
내적치유관련자료
개혁주의&청교도
상담 Counseling
|
|
A CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS SCHAEFFER
A CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS SCHAEFFER by D.R.Trethewie Reforming and Congregational Church East Geelong. Copyright © 1999. Previous editions, 1976 and 1978. 자료출처 http://members.tripod.com/quick_geelong/church/schaeffer.html 'For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.' 1 Corinthians 1:22-24. 'The existence of God is really a cognition of the human soul, like the cognition of matter or of ourselves. It is so inseparable from the development of reason that wherever we find a man, we find one who is not a stranger to the existence of God. The real problem of Theology is not to prove that a God exists, as if she were instructing the ignorant or imparting a new truth to the mind, but to show the grounds upon which we are already in possession of the truth. It is to vindicate an existing faith, and not to create a new one. The belief itself is universal - as universal as the belief in the soul. However men may differ on other points, they agree in this.' The Collected Writings of James Henry Thornwell, Volume 1, page 58, Banner of Truth, 1974. PREFACE This is a second study in a series examining Kuyperianism today. The present paper is a critical review of key features of two of the works of Francis Schaeffer: 1. Escape from Reason, and 2. The God Who is There. As I have studied both Schaeffer and Van Til, I have come to the opinion that we who prefer the 'old paths' have two main objectives in dealing with the systems of these men: 1. To free theology from their philosophical impositions, and 2. To free secular studies from their clericalism. This runs to the centre of the debate, i.e. 'Is the nature-grace distinction just?' I contend that it is. Deny this distinction as they do, and what follows - theology is embroiled in philosophy, and secular studies in clericalism. Because Kuyperianism does not make this distinction, not only is theology spoiled with philosophy, but in addition the doctrines necessary unto salvation are not given the distinctive definition and priority they merit. Van Til rejects a category of doctrines necessary unto salvation as usually understood by Reformed theologians, and at the very least Schaeffer interferes with their priority. Against Kuyperianism it can be justly argued that in fact the Church's special role is to expound the doctrines necessary unto salvation. She has an interest in the doctrines discoverable by the light of nature, but they are not her prerogative: philosophers, scientists and men generally may discuss these teachings with some authority and without the need for church patronage. A special aim of this paper is to protect the abiding usefulness of the Historical Witness. Schaeffer's doctrine was first presented to me in 1969. What concerned me then, was its threat to the established doctrinal and practical theology bequeathed to us from former generations. It was implied that this theology, in its presentation, was not up to date enough for the twentieth century. Schaeffer deceptively invites us not to change the doctrine, just the manner of its presentation. The old exegesis proceeds on a plan of plainness and simplicity. Schaeffer wants a change in line with twentieth century philosophy. Philosophy, especially when inaccurate, and Schaeffer admits that the twentieth century systems are erroneous, is notoriously difficult for the ordinary man. The scripture message thus cannot be made plainer on Schaeffer's advice, and the corruption of its substance is very likely. CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION SCHAEFFER'S GENERAL POSITION PRACTICAL CRITICISM - THE MODE OF GOSPEL PRESENTATION MORE ON SCHAEFFER'S POSITION Relation to the Dutch School Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til Common Ground with Non-Christians Non-Christian Work in the Natural Sphere Commendable Features CRITICISM OF HIS BASIC THESIS His History of Philosophy The Gospel and Philosophy The Bible Not His Primary Source Hegel's Significance The Power of God's Word Ministers are Ambassadors Scripture Proof Requested Sin the Cause of Tribulation not Philosophy The Priority of the Gospel and Experimental Preaching PRE-EVANGELISM A Similar Approach from Sydney Answers A Contradictory Element Schaeffer Does Preach the Gospel THE CONDITION OF THE UNCONVERTED What does Scripture Say, and Heathen Testimony Schaeffer's View of Sin too Narrow The Past Not so Different CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE Our Position The Heavenly and Earthly Spheres Merged Two Commandments The Cultural Skills of Non-Christians Genius and Cultural Success The Theatre and Poor Literature No Flattery Intended A Humanistic Doctrine of Education Education and Culture are Not Religious Media Politics APPENDIX I - PRESUPPOSITIONS APPENDIX II - FRANCIS BACON SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The March 1976 Banner of Truth Magazine printed an extract from Dabney's Sacred Rhetoric (Richmond, Virginia, 1881). In it there is a most perceptive comment which can be brought to bear on the debate with the modern Dutch theologians, and with Francis Schaeffer. Dabney says, "It is exceedingly instructive to note, that there are three stages through which preaching has passed with the same results. The first is that in which scriptural truth is faithfully presented in scriptural garb - that is to say, not only are all the doctrines asserted which truly belong to the revealed system of redemption, but they are presented in that dress and connection in which the Holy Spirit has presented them, without seeking any other from human science. This state of the pulpit marks the golden age of the Church. The second is the transition stage. In this, the doctrines taught are still those of the Scriptures, but their relations are moulded into conformity with the prevalent human dialectics. God's truth is now shorn of part of its power over the soul. The third stage is then near, in which not only are the methods and explanations conformed to the philosophy of the day, but the doctrines themselves contradict the truth of the Word. Again and again have the clergy travelled this descending scale, and always with the same disastrous results." SCHAEFFER'S GENERAL POSITION Schaeffer, in common with the modern Dutch theologians, rejects the distinction of earthly and heavenly things of Aquinas, i.e. the nature-grace concept. He suggests that once this distinction is made nature will inevitably "eat up" grace. Also, "Schaeffer does not prove God in the same way as the old-fashioned proofs which, in any case he rejects. He seems to take God's existence for granted." Philosophy and the Christian Faith, by Colin Brown, page 265, Paternoster, 1969. Brown too rejects the theistic proofs; it appears to be the modern fashion, even among those who say they are friends of the truth. PRACTICAL CRITICISM - THE MODE OF GOSPEL PRESENTATION Before considering Schaeffer's position more widely I would first look at the practical recommendations he advocates upon the basis of his thesis, because these recommendations can be identified with a phase in the corruption of gospel teaching, occurring repeatedly in history, pointed to by Dabney in a quotation in the Introduction to the present paper. This I believe is the most profitable criticism that can be made of Schaeffer. Schaeffer says that the facts of Christianity are unchangeable but these unchangeable facts have to be communicated in a changing world. So he rejects what he calls "speaking the gospel only in familiar phrases to the middle classes." Escape from Reason, page 93, I.V.P., 1971. The formula urged is, "Each generation of the church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought forms of that setting." Ibid. pages 93-94. Schaeffer suggests that twentieth century intellectuals, working class people and children cannot be reached with the 'familiar phrases'. See also his work The God Who is There, page 162, Hodder and Stoughton, 1968. Thus Schaeffer advocates a method of preaching the gospel which is equivalent to the transition phase in the decline of the purity of the pulpit, to which Dabney has pointed. Schaeffer would keep the scripture doctrines, but is not satisfiedd with their native dress and connection, their 'familiar phrases'. He would have them presented with 'the methods and explanations conformed to the philosophy of the day'. And so, 'God's truth is now shorn of part of its power over the soul'. We are to use Schaeffer's view of twentieth century dialectics as the vehicle for transmitting God's Word. As an example of what Schaeffer means he takes John 20:31 and says, "In twentieth century language we could translate 'sign' as 'space-time proof': 'Many other space-time proofs therefore did Jesus.'" The God Who is There, page 140. In the same vein, using Schaeffer as an authority, I have heard it said that we should not use the word sin, but an alternative such as rebellion, because twentieth century man equates the word 'sin' with sexual immorality only. Also the traditional scripture terms have been referred to as jargon, because, it is said, modern man's thought does not comprehend them. In passing it could be argued against Schaeffer that a person of the first century would understand the term space-time proof despite its sophistication, and equally that modern man would comprehend the scripture term sign despite its simplicity. Another example Schaeffer has given concerns the practical witness of our lives as Christians before men. Instead of expounding this matter simply from scripture, he borrows a concept from the existentialists, who he says "are right at this place", stating, "What will matter is our relationship to the Lord Jesus, individually and then corporately, at this existential moment. What counts………is whether we are exhibiting God and His character now." The God Who is There page 152. What he is getting at escapes me a little. However, apart from the impropriety of his using a philosophical concept to express a scripture principle, what he has said appears contrary to scripture. Christ has told us not to be confident. Of our witness at one point; He has said rather, "If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed." John8:31. Also, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matthew24:13. (Emphases mine). We might examine a little further what Schaeffer means by 'speaking the gospel only in familiar phrases to the middle classes'. There is much in modern preaching that we too would take exception to. It is often superficial, and plainly contradicts scripture. But if, as it seems, Schaeffer reprehends the proclamation of the gospel in the style of the cloud of witnesses who have gone before us, because such a presentation is not sophisticated enough for modern man, then Schaeffer needs to be taken to scripture and told, "My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 2:4-5. This is the crux of my contention with Schaeffer: the simplicity of the scripture style, which is one of its most excellent characteristics, is to be maintained in its proclamation. Schaeffer's proposal is to ignore that "The philosophy and oratory of the heathen were suited principally, if not solely, to their capacity that were learned: this the authors and professors of it aimed at - namely, that they might approve their skill and ability unto those who were able to judge them. The scripture was written for the good of mankind in general, and without the least design of any contemperation of itself to the learning and wisdom of men; and this sugkatabasiv, or condescension unto the common reason, sense, usage, and experience, of mankind in general; is very admirable in the holy penmen, and absolutely peculiar unto them." An Exposition of Hebrews, by John Owen, Volume 1,page 54, N.F.C.E., 1969. In support of this contention Owen cites Augustine, who said of the holy penmen, "I dare say that whosoever understands what they speak, will also understand that they ought not to have spoken otherwise." Ibid. Origen's comment on the writings of Paul too, is cited, "If anyone give himself to the diligent reading of his (Paul's) epistles, I know full well that either he will admire his great conceptions under a plain and vulgar style, or he will show himself very ridiculous." Ibid. So with Owen we would commend the "excellent simplicity of the Scripture style...…….without fraudulent ornaments." Ibid. page 55. The corruption of this simplicity, along the lines suggested by Schaeffer will not only hinder the communication of the scripture message, but in all probability will also corrupt the message itself. It is clear that Schaeffer wants a change in the mode of presentation of the gospel, suggesting that if we continue the old style, this "would be as wrong as if, for example, Hudson Taylor had sent missionaries to China and then told them to learn only one of three separate dialects that the people spoke." Escape from Reason, page 93. On the basis of this analogy Schaeffer would have us translate the gospel into what he calls twentieth century language and thought forms. But this is to confuse language with philosophical dialectic. To take a simple illustration. In the ancient world there was one Greek Language, but a variety of philosophical schools using this language, both successively and simultaneously. That the language was distinct from the thought forms of the schools is clear because: 1. The various schools held differing doctrines, but discussed these doctrines in the same language. 2. The language was principally a vehicle for communication between ordinary people, about common affairs, and not a peculiar philosophical tool. 3. When the New Testament was written in Greek it was not accommodated to any school of philosophy, nor even to a vague 'Hellenistic' mode of thought. The Greek was simply used in its common meaning. Implicit in the distinction between language and philosophical dialectic is the fact that the language and common sense of mankind are more impervious to the tenets of false philosophy than Schaeffer appreciates. Thornwell has said of common sense principles that they are "a part of the natural faith of mankind; and, practically, nature has always asserted them in defiance of the sophistries of a perverse philosophy." Collected Writings, Volume 1, page 219. The truth of Thornwell's assertion is demonstrated by this very fact, that despite the bombardment of the Greeks with a series of philosophies, they developed a language so free of the taint of philosophical error that the Holy Spirit used it in the production of the New Testament. Paul found no reason to accommodate his message to Hellenistic philosophy in the ancient world. Neither should we be tempted by insinuations that we might overcome our so-called failure to communicate, to give out a message dressed in the sophistications of the twentieth century. Schaeffer's analogy from the dialects of language does not justify fitting the scripture doctrines 'into conformity with the prevalent human dialectics,' to use Dabney's words. The question 'Is Dabney right?', might be asked. Well Dabney's opinion is based upon an examination of the history of the church, and its relations to the philosophical schools. What he says can be substantiated. One has only to think of the influence of Platonism on the early church, Aristotelianism on the medieval church, and enlightenment philosophy, including German rationalism and French Revolutionary thinking, on the modern church. Schaeffer too draws attention to some of this history. The scripture support for Dabney's view of the undesirability of this process of fitting scripture doctrine with the prevalent philosophy is as follows: "For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." 1 Corinthians 1:17. And, "Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches." 1 Corinthians 2:13. We are not to teach 'in the words that man's wisdom teaches', but to stick to the simple style impressed upon the Word by the Holy Spirit. Thus we are distressed by Schaeffer's criticism of us, who would go on preaching from scripture, in its own terms, its own 'familiar phrases', if you like, in the old way. We must distinguish between knowing the errors of the day, and translating the gospel into their idiom. MORE ON SCHAEFFER'S POSITION Relation to the Dutch School He recognises the difference between the British/American Reformed theologians and the Dutch, which I have discussed in my paper, A Critique of Kuyperianism. His preference for the Dutch position is fairly clear: "In Holland, for example, more than in Anglo-Saxon Christianity they emphasised that this (the Lordship of Christ over the whole man) meant a Lordship of Christ in culture. So it means that Christ is equally Lord in both areas: GRACE/NATURE." Escape from Reason, page 29. Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til His special link with this school seems to be Cornelius Van Til. For Schaeffer rejects natural theology, uses the 'presuppositional method', and speaks of 'autonomous man'. How close the link with Van Til is appears to be somewhat uncertain. Errol Hulse says that, "Some have questioned this (the association between Schaeffer and Van Til) since Van Til lays such stress on the fact that believers have no common ground with 'autonomous man'." The Church as Confessing Community III - The Relevance of the Confession, page 4, Reformed Studies Conference, Melbourne, 1973. The implication is that Schaeffer is so concerned to help the lost in the twentieth century that he concedes that some common ground does exist. We believe he has been carried away to the extent that he advocates the use of the philosophies of the lost too. Common Ground with Non-Christians By 'common ground' between Christians and non-Christians is meant an area of facts and a process of reasoning about these facts, which is neutral, and about which there is agreement. Our doctrine is that there is such common ground. As far as ordinary men are governed by common sense, and to a large extent they are, then the reasoning process and the facts ascertained are the same for Christians and non-Christians. As indicated previously, the rejection of scripture truth by men is not so much due to intellectual failure on their part, but because of enmity in their hearts. Indeed we may still assert the truth to those who are prejudiced against it, because these prejudices outrage their own reasoning faculty, which remains our ally in their soul. On whether there is common ground between believers and unbelievers, both Schaeffer and Van Til in my view equivocate, i.e. they try both to deny it and to affirm it. Perhaps Schaeffer does concede more than Van Til. The following quotes may help to demonstrate Schaeffer's doctrine. "Thirty or more years ago you could have said things as 'This is true' or 'This is right', and you would have been on everybody's wavelength." The God Who is There, page 13. A major part of his thesis is what he calls the 'tremendous shift' in the philosophical outlook of people in the U.S. since about 1935. He asserts that the same change occurred in Europe in about 1890. This implies that people were thinking more correctly previously. I doubt if Van Til would accept the baldness of Schaeffer's contention, that we then would have been 'on everybody's wavelength'. Also he would reject the same thought put another way by Schaeffer: "Before those dates (as above) everyone would have been working on the same presuppositions." Ibid. Van Til would say that Christians and non-Christians have always had, and will always have, a different set of presuppositions. The equivocation appears in Schaeffer as follows: 1. Speaking of man before the 'tremendous shift' he says, "Now it may be argued that the non-Christian had no right to act on the presuppositions he acted on. That is true." Ibid. He tells us they then held true presuppositions, but had no right to do so, implying, because of his Kuyperian stance, that they had another, deeper set of presuppositions which should have made them reject the true ones. Schaeffer's concession that men then had the right presuppositions is therefore not bona fide, being contradicted by his qualification that 'they had no right to act on' them. A right preserved for intolerant Kuyperianism. 2. Speaking of man after the shift, he says, "In practice then, we do have a point for conversation, but this point is not properly to be spoken of as 'neutral'. It exists because, regardless of a man's system, he has to live in God's world." Ibid. page 125. In our day, when men are bound more firmly by 'wrong presuppositions', according to Schaeffer, we are supposed still to 'have a point for conversation'! This is contradictory. The contradiction is reasserted when he tells us that the point of contact is not 'neutral'. Van Til speaks in a similar manner. Both Schaeffer and Van Til are really caught in a net here. They say we have a point of contact in conversation, implying some agreement, and yet they still maintain that the non-Christian does not know what we are talking about! The reason they give, that we may talk effectively with non-Christians, is emptied of weight by their theory. Whether a man lives in God's world or not, can make no difference to the possibility of valid communication with him, if the man's presuppositions substantially distort (as they allege) all the information coming to his intellect. Non-Christian Work in the Natural Sphere Schaeffer also seems to recognise that men can do valid work in the natural sphere. Such a concession puts a significant crack in the Kuyperian edifice, and contradicts his basic thesis. He says, "Some of them (linguistic philosophers in a British university) have quite properly established a reputation for rationality in the definition of words, but they then make a leap, changing their mask by attacking Christianity on the basis of a Humanism which has no relationship whatsoever to the downstairs area of linguistic analysis. Escape from Reason, page 57. Here he talks more like us, though we wonder about such jargon as 'downstairs area'. He acknowledges natural man's ability in language study, and the abuse of reason in attacking Christianity. In a similar vein, there is a reference to John Cage, an existentialist musician who said, "I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of my chance operations (which he uses in music) I would die shortly……....So I decided that I would not approach them in this way." The God Who is There, page 73. Schaeffer says of Cage, he is "one of the best amateur mycologists (one who studies fungi) in the country (U.S.A.)". Ibid. Commendable Features Although I must reject Schaeffer's general position, I believe his work has certain commendable features. His discussion of the development of philosophy from the middle ages to modern despair and existentialism is most interesting. I find most enlightening his remarks concerning the influence of existentialism on modern art, literature and music. He also traces its effect in theology. The glossary in The God Who is There, pages 175-178, is helpful. I think he is right to show such a concern for the need to communicate the gospel to all classes of society. Christ said, "the poor have the gospel preached to them," Matthew 11:5, and Paul preached to Greek intellectuals on Mars Hill. Acts 17. Further his emphasis that faith is to be put in truth is correct, and that Christians should be careful not to present the Christian life as a leap in the dark - a form of existential experience. Existentialists, holding opinions the logical conclusion of which is despair, look around for a non-rational way to find meaning for themselves. They say they find it in an experience, the nature of which cannot be discussed because it is non-rational. Schaeffer's warning is that, "The phrase accepting Christ as Saviour can mean anything. We are not saying what we are trying to say, unless we make completely clear that we are talking about objective truth, when we say Christianity is true and therefore accepting Christ as Saviour is not just some form of upper storey leap". The God Who is There, page 142. CRITICISM OF HIS BASIC THESIS His History of Philosophy On two of the points above I would proffer two immediate criticisms. Firstly, in the two books I have referred to, his discussion of the development of philosophy is in outline form, and rather assertive. One might ask, where is the evidence to prove that his analysis of the history of philosophy is correct? We reject his tracing all the trouble to Aquinas's distinction of nature and grace. Duns Scotus and Ockham are left out, who were two scholastics critical of Aquinas on grounds similar to those of Schaeffer. Calvin did recognise the nature-grace distinction, and the ability of unconverted men in the natural realm, and even to a limited extent in matters pertaining to God. There is more variety and mosaicism in philosophy than the simple linear development he describes. However he does mention that logical positivism and defining philosophy are more significant than existentialism in the Anglo-Saxon world. Yet there are other features left out: rationalists and empiricists have been in conflict with each other for example, and what of pragmatism which has had a great vogue in the U.S.? The Scottish Common Sense School, to which the Alexanders, Hodges, Dabney, Thornwell and Warfield belong in philosophy, is not noticed, though Francis Bacon, one of their forerunners, is, see Escape from Reason, page 31. His account of Bacon is unsatisfactory however, see Appendix II of the present paper. I gather that since the nineteen sixties, existentialists have wandered off in other directions; do we have to translate the gospel into the new thought forms? Further, do we need a different thought form for each philosophy, given the variety that even Schaeffer admits? The Gospel and Philosophy Secondly, our concern to communicate the gospel should not be abused by using, human dialectics to transmit the gospel. The Bible Not His Primary Source The Bible is not the primary source of his method. His approach is too philosophical. What we are to do in the ministry is conditioned on a study of the development of human ideas through history, rather than on the directions we are given in the scriptures. The keystone to his argument appears to be, that prior to Hegel people believed in the law of cause and the law of contradiction, the latter affirming the distinctness of individual things, and so could understand the scriptures in the ordinary way. But, "With the coming of Hegel all this changed." The God Who is There, page 19. He suggests that since Hegel, who attacked the laws of cause and contradiction, thought forms have so changed that the old preaching is just not good enough anymore. Hegel's Significance The significance Schaeffer gives to Hegel is worth questioning. Certainly his ideas can be seen progressing to existentialism, he was a factor in the development of Nazism, and Marx used his doctrine to elaborate Communism. However one might justly argue that logical positivism and its attendant, materialistic atheism is the erroneous philosophy which is the most serious contender for pre-eminence in the West. Further, the evil of Hegelian idealism and pantheism has been generally recognised: "Mountains of dust and rubble and millions of graves testify today to the fatal character of such one-sided historical thinking as that of Hegel." Douglas Gerrold in Everyman's Encyclopaedia, Volume 9, page 621, Dent, 1970. Also, idealism and pantheism are not new errors, they have been in the West for at least two thousand years. The old preaching coped all right with them before. The Power of God's Word But the philosophical question aside, what Schaeffer is challenging is the ability of the Word of God to cut its own path into the human soul, and the Word's authority to determine what and how we should preach. We believe that, "The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of' the heart." Hebrews 4:12. There is no philosophical cloak or shield that a man can so cover himself with that the sword of Spirit cannot cleave it asunder, and if it comes in the power of the Spirit then all is carried before it. How vain a thought it is to consider that we could sharpen that sword with human philosophy! John Owen speaks most highly of the power of the Word in this regard: "Multitudes there are unto whom the word is declared who hate all its precepts, despise all its promises, abhor all its threatenings, approve of nothing, of what it declares or proposes; yet dare not absolutely refuse or reject it……….They hate it, wish it were not, hope it is not true; but are not by any means able to shake off a disquiet in the sense of its divine authority. This testimony it has fixed in the heart of multitudes of its enemies, Psalm 45:5." Works, Volume 4, pages 98-99, Banner of Truth, 1967. I found it interesting in 1976 to notice in a television series considering the history of' Europe, called The Mighty Continent, that one programme was titled are 'How are the Mighty Fallen', which is a well known scripture quotation from 2 Samuel 1:19. The analogy drawn was to the crash of European nations in the Second World War and just after. Peter Ustinov, one of the comperes, went further and quite soberly found an explanation of the cause in the verse, "Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18. These people do not claim to be Reformed Christians, yet they are able, validly, to fit simple Bible testimonies to historical circumstances. Such power has the Word. Corrupt philosophy has not yet carried the day. Ministers are Ambassadors Jesus said, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20. This is the infinitely wise God who has spoken. Surely He knows what is fit for man, His own creature, and has provided enduring words suitable to all generations. Surely Christ has a right to speak His own words. We are but his ambassadors, and are unfaithful to our trust if we do not deliver His message in His own words. Preaching Christ before men is our prime work. Howsoever they are darkened, by looking unto Him they shall be lightened. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:22. This message is for 'all the ends of the earth', no change in line with the philosophy of the day is required. Scripture Proof Requested Such a major alteration in our method is conceived by Schaeffer that we must insist that scripture proof be provided, before we set out to transmit gospel truth in the shifting sands of capricious philosophical dialects. There is no such proof. Rather Christ has warned us not to leaven our teaching with the errors of sceptics, who in His day were represented by the Sadducee party. "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16:6. We quote Augustine again, as above, 'I dare say that whosoever understands what they (the holy penmen of the scriptures) speak, will also understand that they ought not to have spoken otherwise.' Away with attempting to sophisticate the message. Sin the Cause of Tribulation not Philosophy In passing it should be noted that Schaeffer gives the impression that our troubles are due to errors in philosophy. This obscures the hegemony of sin in causing dishonour to God and misery to man. Erroneous philosophies are but one fruit of sin, not the radical cause of it. It is the Bible, more than any other book, which teaches us fully concerning sin. It is but common sense that we should learn from there what should be known and preached in that regard. The knowledge of the errors of the day has its place, but such knowledge clearly must be subordinated to scripture knowledge. The Priority of the Gospel and Experimental Preaching A preoccupation with philosophy could distract us from giving due place to preaching the one thing needful, 'Jesus Christ and him crucified', which is the principal concern of the Christian teacher. Further, as Robert Traill in a former day, and Cornelis Pronk in our own day have recommended, an essential element in the cure of the evils of this preoccupation is found in sound experimental preaching. This also must not be neglected, and has a priority over the examination of philosophy and its errors. When dealing practically in preaching we must bear in mind that, as there are various philosophies, so there is variety amongst the people. They are not all enthralled by existentialism. Some are ritualists, others are atheists, agnostics, pantheists, nominal evangelicals etc. It is the peculiar tendency of Kuyperianism, as it is expressed today, to obscure this variety, by lumping all together as one autonomous man. In fairness to Schaeffer it must be pointed out that he does recognise some variety within congregations and recommends that "Those who care nothing about the new problems are yet to be fed and shepherded." The God Who is There, page 164. PRE-EVANGELISM The subject of pre-evangelism is another area of disagreement we have with Schaeffer. He says, "The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scriptures but the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what shows him his need. The Scriptures then show him the nature of his lostness and the answer to it. This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the twentieth century for man living under the line of despair." The God Who is There, p.128. Simply stated, he says, "We must never forget that the first part of the Gospel is not 'Accept Christ as Saviour', but 'God is there'. Ibid. page 132 A Similar Approach from Sydney A method similar to this has been advocated by some evangelicals in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, and I am aware of evidence that Schaeffer's doctrine has provided a stimulus to them. They have said, 'We must preach God, or God in Christ, as Creator and King, with man as rebel, before we teach Christ as Redeemer by the cross.' They would exhort men to repent on this basis, and either imply, or frankly assert, that the message of the cross is unnecessary to bring men to conversion. Christ's name might be used, but He is to be set forth as King, and His priestly office actively neglected in evangelism. The suggestion is that the cross is a doctrine to be taught at a later stage, after a person is saved. An attempt has been made, by preachers in this mould, to justify such a method from scripture. A difference has been observed between Paul's preaching to the Jews, eg. in Acts 13:16ff and his preaching to the Gentiles on Mars hill, in Acts 17:22ff. It is said that Paul presupposes Jewish ideas of sacrifice and redemption in speaking with the Jews, but did not do so with the Gentiles. Because modern man is so ignorant of scriptural matters, and infected with practical atheism, he is in the same position as the ancient Greeks, and should be spoken to accordingly. The similarity to Schaeffer is fairly clear. There is the same emphasis on modern man's spiritual ignorance, and the use of this principle in so determining the content of the message that the cross is set aside from being the spearhead of evangelism, a place it held in the old preaching. Thus these others disparage the old preaching too, as Schaeffer does. Perhaps there is a difference worth noticing - Schaeffer at least allows the cross a subordinate role in evangelism, whereas the Sydney group tend to leave the cross out of evangelism. We are not satisfied with either of these views. Answers 1. The question is raised again, what should determine the preaching matter, the scriptures, or the special condition of the people? I have said that some have tried to justify their method from the Acts of the Apostles. However I have not noticed Schaeffer doing so. He argues from his personal opinions concerning man, not scripture. A concern for people's background is obviously right, but it cannot be the ruling principle determining what is to be preached. 2. Schaeffer's method proceeds from a wrong assumption, that 'non-Christians have rejected the first truths of religion.' Therefore, he concludes, they need first a course of pre-evangelism in apologetic doctrines, that they might learn 'God is there'. This is not what Paul teaches. He says that non-Christians already know that 'God is there', telling the Greeks, "In him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." Acts 17:28 (emphasis mine). Of course this cuts to the heart of Kuyperian theory. Kuyperians either reject, or equivocate over the question of whether non-Christians are able to properly acknowledge Gods existence, from considering the things that are made. Our position is that of the traditional apologetic, affirmed in the earlier conservative evangelical theology, which is quite consonant with Paul's remarks to this effect. As Thomas Watson says, "We know that there is a God by his works, and this is so evident a demonstration of a Godhead, that the most atheistical spirits, when they have considered these works, have been forced to acknowledge some wise and supreme maker of these things; as is reported of Galen and others." A Body of Divinity, page 39, Banner of Truth, 1965. Thus, there is a difference between pointing to the first truths of religion already known by non-Christians, while preaching the gospel and a formal pre-evangelism covering first truths, on the erroneous assumption that they are not known, during which the gospel of Christ crucified is withheld. This was not Paul's way, for he says, "I kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:20-21. 3. In Acts 17 Paul does notice the truths of natural theology held by the Greeks and rebukes their special sin of idolatry. However, if they are to be saved, he must move on, to the truths of scripture 'necessary unto salvation'. The limited knowledge, 'God is there' already possessed, does not save. Hence we find him, in the same sermon, speaking of the resurrection, repentance, and the coming judgement of the world by Christ. It could be justly argued that the churches primary role is to proclaim the doctrines necessary unto salvation, and that formal apologetics are of secondary importance, though by no means to be neglected. 4. Thus the correct position is not Schaeffer's, that the teaching of what we call the truths of natural theology should be first, and Christ and the cross later. To those who use Paul's preaching in Acts to justify a postponement of preaching Christ crucified, I would say that it is too narrow a view to found the whole approach to modern man on what Paul said to the Greeks on Mars Hill. This sermon seems to have been interrupted anyway, as soon as Paul spoke of the resurrection. The settling of this question is so important that we find it clearly answered in scripture: "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:22-24. Here we see that both Jews and Greeks, for different reasons, are prejudiced against the doctrine of the cross. Contrary to Schaeffer, who says, 'The truth we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the scriptures', and, 'the first part of the gospel is not, Accept Christ as Saviour', Paul asserts that 'Christ crucified' is the doctrine to be preached first. Also, neither the Jewish nor the Greek prejudices, both crying at the cross, have any power to make us modify the message, i.e. change either the priorities or terms of its presentation. This is because it is 'the power of God, and the wisdom of God', no small considerations. 5. We must not fail to notice that the gospel does not, in the nature of things, need to be preceded by a special season of so-called apologetic pre-evangelism. This because it carries its own self-evidencing light: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." 2 Peter 1:19. 6. Instruction in the whole scripture framework is mandatory: "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4. Of himself Paul said, "I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God." Acts 20:27. In our day the Bible is easily obtained and can be read fairly promptly to find out the background knowledge essential to a full appreciation Of God's purpose for mankind. Christian friends can assist in the acquiring of this knowledge, and preachers can pay attention to it when presenting the gospel. Thus the problem of inadequate knowledge can be overcome without the need to exalt apologetics over the gospel. 7. To those who would teach that preaching Christ as King is sufficient to lead men to salvation, it should be pointed out that when we are exhorted 'To repent and believe the-gospel' we are to turn to and trust in Christ in all His three offices, Prophet, Priest and King. Therefore all these aspects of His person are proper and imperative subjects in preaching to the lost. This includes the cross, which has first place. 8. Thus we would free the presentation of Jesus Christ and him crucified from the fetters of pre-evangelism. We are happy to notice the truths of natural theology in parallel with the gospel, in the proportions recommended by the scripture. The cross has the priority, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Galatians 6:14. See also, John 3:14-15, 12:32 cf. verse 20, 1 Corinthians 2:2, and Galatians 3:l. A Contradictory Element We should note here again the contradictory element in Schaeffer's thesis, which is also apparent in Van Til. They had begun by telling us that the fall had so affected the intellect that human knowledge outside of Christ was in some way invalidated: "In Aquinas's view the will of man was fallen, but the intellect was not. From this incomplete view of the Biblical fall flowed all the Subsequent difficulties." Escape from Reason, page 11. Kuyper said, as Warfield observed, if the intellect of the unbeliever is so incompetent, what is the point of trying to reason with him about the first truths of religion, which is the function of apologetics. It appears that Warfield's criticism of Kuyper so affected Van Til, that he (Van Til) has tried to find a place for apologetics. Schaeffer has a passion for apologetics, giving it a priority over the gospel, in the hope of aiding the rescue of modern man, lost and on the brink of despair. But the validity of apologetics depends upon the ability of man's intellect to perceive the argument. Van Til has produced a complex, and we would say contradictory answer to cope with this dilemma in their position. He says the non-Christian receives the truth, but distorts and suppresses it beyond recognition; he talks about them 'knowing deep down' what is true and yet not knowing. We see no difficulty, believing that the rational. faculty in man is able to perceive the truth of the first principles of religion, and to acknowledge their truth with conviction, "Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." James 2:19. Certainly, prejudice blinds some in these matters, but not all, and the reason in all may see. Schaeffer and Van Til carry the inability of the intellect into all fields of knowledge. We might say to Schaeffer, if non-Christian philosophy is so wrong, how can it be a satisfactory vehicle for the transmission of unchanging truth? Schaeffer Does Preach the Gospel Though he does not give it first priority, Schaeffer does preach the gospel. In The God Who is There, pages 135-136, he gives an extract of some length from Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress to this effect. As far as we are concerned, this is heartily to be commended, and it is put in the good old way. The Sadducee leaven he has mixed with it doesn't help however. THE CONDITION OF THE UNCONVERTED Schaeffer advances a personal view of the condition of the unconverted, and suggests that this appreciation of his is a major factor determining how we should lead modern man to salvation. His theory is, "Every man is somewhere along the line between the real world and the logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions. Every person feels the pull of two inconsistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of his system. He may let the pendulum swing back and forth between them, but he cannot live in both places at once." The God Who is There, page 122. He says that men are thus under tension spiritually, and our exploitation of this tension will facilitate their conversion. What does Scripture Say, and Heathen Testimony Again, we would prefer a scriptural account of the state of man first. It is reasonable then to subordinate to the scriptural exposition testimonies from men, including the unconverted, agreeable to scripture, and in plain language. "Even Plato declared the result of his observations on man, to be a conviction that evil was hereditary in his nature, from which, through ignorance of the true remedy, he laments that no refuge can be discovered. 'I have heard', says this philosopher, 'from wise men, that we are dead, an our body is a tomb'........." The Life of Rowland Hill, by Edwin Sidney, page 435, Baldwin and Craddock, 1834. Paul too acknowledged this principle, giving credence to our doctrine of the competence of the light of nature, when he spoke to the Athenians, and Corinthians, and to Titus of the Cretians. But this differs from Schaeffer's use of non-Christian testimony. Schaeffer has constructed a whole system of preaching the gospel, as against an incidental subordinate reference to heathen testimony, on the basis of his own somewhat questionable exposition of the history of the development of errors in philosophy. Schaeffer's View of Sin too Narrow Schaeffer's analysis is too simple. There is more to sin than the problem he notices. Further, it may be questioned whether men generally are under tension spiritually. It is possible that men may be so blinded, hardened of heart, and past feeling, that they are able to live with all sorts of contradictions without tension, in a false peace. To suggest that exploiting this tension can facilitate in any special way the conversion of modern man smacks of Arminianism. This is because such a doctrine affirms that there is something in man, which, if handled in the right way, will substantially assist his conversion. The preacher, using scripture and cogent reasons, may deal with spiritual tension where it exists. Such tension is not an overriding principle, but rather one facet of sin or its effects, which may be of greater or lesser importance in particular cases. What Schaeffer provides is a doctrine of sin, dressed in his own personal philosophical exposition; the Bible is barely allowed to follow after. The correct procedure would be to explain in plain terms, not philosophical dialect, from scripture, the doctrine of sin, fitting it to man's circumstances today, which are not as different from the past as Schaeffer asserts. The Past Not so Different The condition of England in the eighteenth century at the time of the Evangelical Awakening for example, should be well known: "There is indeed ample proof of widespread scepticism both within and outside the church, much ignorance of the Bible amongst the clergy, and considerable scepticism and disbelief both amongst the higher ranks of society and also amongst the people in general. In other Words the Wesley brothers and Whitefield could not have relied on a naive and prompt agreement with everything they said, as is often argued." 'John Wesley and the Biblical Criticism of his Day', by Victor Budgen, in The Banner of Truth Magazine, Nos. 154-155, July/August, 1976, page 55, (emphasis mine). This judgement is supported by Bishop Butler, who said in 1736, "It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject for inquiry; but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious." The Analogy of Religion, Preface. Thus Schaeffer's historical judgement and his practical recommendations both fall to the ground. Men, more than 200 years ago, were no more disposed than they are now to receive scripture truth. The ministers of the Evangelical Awakening opposed scepticism with plain Bible teaching, not with a gospel fashioned according to man's wisdom, and had considerable success to the glory of God. Today's scepticism may be dealt with similarly. CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE Kuyperians emphasise cultural involvement. Schaeffer's concurrence with this has been noted above on page 5. We do not accept this, and hold that scripture does not set forth any special commission for the churches and believers to erect a peculiar Christian culture, manifest as distinct Christian disciplines of learning, and separate Christian institutions. Our Position Unlike the Kuyperians, the scriptures draw a strong line between heavenly and earthly things: "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." Colossians 3:2, and, "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things." Philippians 3:18-20. We are not to be preoccupied with earthly concerns, but to give our heart first and foremost to our heavenly obligations. Though we are 'in the world', we are not to be 'of the world'. Obviously we do not neglect the concerns of this life we have moral obligations to discharge in this sphere. Asceticism too, i.e. religious abstinence from lawful creature comforts, is condemned by scripture: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:4-5. The principle is that we are to use these things temperately, "And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passes away." 1 Corinthians 7:31. We are warned not to love the world, "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:1-5. The Heavenly and Earthly Spheres Merged Thus we distinguish the heavenly and earthly spheres, subordinating the latter to the former. Kuyperians would have us confuse these two spheres in a type of unity in which the distinction of the one from the other is lost. In Schaeffer's deceptive words, "What the Reformation tells us, therefore, is that God has spoken in the Scriptures concerning both the upstairs and the downstairs (he means heavenly and earthly respectively)….....Therefore they had a real unity of knowledge. They simply did not have the Renaissance problem of nature and grace! They had a real unity....….on the basis of what God had revealed in both areas." Escape from Reason, page 23. Despite the Kuyperian wish, the two spheres must be distinguished. Shaeffer himself talks of 'both areas'. In passing we protest against the assertion that the Reformers support the Kuyperian position. Calvin said, "It may therefore be proper, in order to make it more manifest how far our ability extends in regard to these two classes of objects, to draw a distinction between them. The distinction is. that we have one kind of intelligence of earthly things, and another of heavenly things. By earthly things, I mean those which relate not to God and his kingdom, to true righteousness and future blessedness, but have some connection with the present life and are in a manner confined within its boundaries." Institutes of Religion, Beveridge Edition, Volume l, page 234, James Clarke, 1962. Kuyperianism was not a chief doctrine of Calvin, as Schaeffer asserts. Calvin was opposed to its main tenets! If this is so, Kuyperians would do well to find out what Calvin's chief doctrines were, because he certainly was a man who had something to say. If the distinction is removed then both areas merge. Subordination of earthly pursuits becomes virtually impossible, and they are given a priority approaching or equal to that of heavenly concerns. Cornelis Pronk of course has shown us that this precisely is the tendency of Kuyperianism. See the Banner of Truth Magazine, Nos. 154-155, July/August, 1976, page 5. The same drift is evident in Schaeffer. Two Commandments That there is a distinction is reflected in the fact that there are two tables of the law, a first and a second commandment. One respecting duty to God who is above, and the other respecting duty to man who is below. John Flavel has brought out the distinction nicely in his exposition of the first question in the The Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end of man? Answer: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him for ever. Seeing a chief supposes an inferior end; what is that inferior end for which man was made? Answer: It is prudently, soberly, and mercifully, to govern, use, and dispose of other creatures in the earth, sea, and air, over which God gave men the dominion; Genesis 1:26……….So Psalm 8:6. What then is to be thought, of those men, who being wholly intent upon inferior things, forget and neglect their principal end? Answer: They are dead whilst they live; 1 Timothy 5:6........They have their portion in this life; Psalm 17:14.......…and their end is destruction; Philippians 3:19.11 Works, Volume 6, page 141, Banner of Truth, 1968. So Christians are to fulfil their earthly callings where they are. They are not to seek a cloistered existence in some special Christian institution, separate from society at large, in the fashion of Roman Catholic monasticism. If Christians have special abilities in the arts then they are at liberty to exercise these, but not as though it were some special Christian thrust into society. The use of such gifts must be seen to be subordinate to the fulfilment of heavenly responsibilities. The Cultural Skills of Non-Christians Christians do not have a prerogative on ability in earthly concerns. Of old it was recognised for example that the Sidonians, who were not of the children of Israel, were especially gifted woodworkers. Solomon said of them, "there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians." 1 Kings 5:6. Schaeffer not only opposes the nature-grace distinction as such, but as expected, he suggests that non-Christian work in earthly things is in some way invalid. "This (Schaeffer's view of Reformation doctrine) did not mean there was no freedom for art and science. It was quite the opposite; there was now possible true freedom within the revealed form..........As we shall see, whenever art or science has tried. to be autonomous (i.e. act outside of scripture authority), a certain principle has always manifested itself - nature eats up grace, and thus art and science themselves soon began to be meaningless." Escape from Reason, pages 23-24. It is worth observing firstly, the clericalistic overtones in their view of 'true freedom within the revealed form'. Secondly, if nature does 'eat up' grace, then this is an abuse, it is not, as Schaeffer teaches, an inevitable consequence of the distinction. Calvin is so far from teaching that 'nature eats up grace, and thus art and science themselves soon began to be meaningless', that he says, "But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth." Institutes of Religion, Volume l, pages 236-237. Genius and Cultural Success In considering the gifts of composition and creativity in art, music and fictional literature Dabney's comments upon the relationship of genius to real success in these pursuits, are worth bearing in mind. See his Discussions, Volume 2, pages 158-159, Banner of Truth, 1967. If his contention is true, then, apart from the fact that it may be non-Christians who possess these gifts anyway, there may be very few Christians indeed who could take up these occupations. If they were so endowed they may better employ their gifts in direct service of Christ, in spiritual matters. In the absence of genius, a moderate recreational use of such gifts is not precluded. Religious art, pictorial and. sculptured, is of course excluded - Abraham Kuyper recognises this point too. The Theatre and Poor Literature A special question is raised concerning the stage, and its modern extension the movie feature film. Historically, Christians in the Augustino-Calvinist or conservative evangelical tradition have considered these art forms evil in themselves. Augustine denounces the stage in his work, The City of God, Book 1, Chapters xxx-xxxi, and Book 2, Chapter viii. The Puritan objection to this form of culture is well known. We would accept the acting out of parables by the prophets, and the imitation of adult roles by children. However, we object strongly to formal play acting by adults. To imitate another man, as one must do in acting, involves patterning oneself after a non-Christian usually, and perhaps a Christian rarely. In either case a Christian could not do this conscientiously. As Charles Spurgeon observes, there is a sign in the theatre labelled 'To the Pit'. There is an inevitable momentum downwards morally, in the acting world. Though this is obvious in our day, it has been clearly observed in earlier times. Conservative evangelicalism always used to assert this point So we would not discuss the theatre as Schaeffer does, in The God Who is There, pages 41ff. He does not recognise its inherently evil character. Our exhortation would be that men forsake these places of iniquity. The same may be said of poor literature, which Schaeffer also considers, again not quite in the way we would. No Flattery Intended Discussion of the philosophical message portrayed in corrupted modern culture should not be allowed to suggest that a cloak of respectability covers the evil, thus detracting from the plain immorality of such culture. Further, in talking of these evils we must remember Paul's caveat, that "...... it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." Ephesians 5:12. Schaeffer acknowledges such things can 'soil you'. However, we would prefer a straight denunciation, in scriptural terms, of the evil committed, and a plain indication that no flattery is intended, if the philosophical niceties of these people are examined. We reject any intimate acquaintance with plainly described sin, as seen in the theatre and much literature. "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians: 5:11. A Humanistic Doctrine of Education A brief notice of a point from Schaeffer concerning education is worth consideration. He says, "Today we have a weakness in our educational process in failing to understand the natural associations between the disciplines. We tend to study all our disciplines in unrelated parallel lines. This tends to be true in both Christian and secular education.........…We have studied our exegesis as exegesis, our theology as theology, our philosophy as philosophy; we study something about art as art; we study music as music, without understanding that these are things of man, and the things of man are not unrelated parallel lines." Escape from Reason, page 12. It is interesting to note that both Kuyperian Christian educationists, and humanist educationists in what they call 'General Studies', teach this principle. They both wish to merge disciplines, conducting education towards a unified religious principle. We would keep the religious and secular fields distinct, holding forth their mutual responsibilities. Within both spheres there are distinct disciplines. Schaeffer should be careful that he does not join Hegel in attempting to reject the law of contradiction, in this case as it applies to educational disciplines and nature-grace, merging 'all difference...…..in absolute indifference - all plurality in absolute unity.' See Appendix I below. Doubtless he would say that he is not seeking an absolute unity, however the unifying tendency is definitely there, and I believe it should be pointed out. We are very concerned that theology and philosophy be distinguished properly from each other, |
| 
|
