« Raising Questions About the Quality of Worship | Main | Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist: The Story of Rock & Rogue by Peter Lumpkins »

2007.03.20

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

volfan007

peter,

i saw on geoff's blog that you once served in dover, tn? is that right?

my former student miniter is from dover. did you know the mann's? or the hughes?


david

peter

David,

I think they may be after me. I was there 1990-93.

With that, I am...

Peter

volfan007

peter,

kylan mann and luke hughes grew up in dover. thats where they are from. kylan used to be my student minister, but he's in arkansas now. i though you may have run across them or their families while in dover.

did you ever eat at patty's? the pork chops?

david

peter

David,

To my knowledge, no one else has such Chops as Patty's. The first time I saw them, I coveted them. I always judge PCs now by Patty's.

with that, I am...

Peter

Benji Ramsaur

I think he was the one who influenced me to switch from a pro-choice to a pro-life position.

The soul of this man was great.

I think that if I ever would have met him, I would have trembled.

peter lumpkins

Benji,

Greetings, brother. I trust your're well. I too possess, as I wrote, a profound respect for Schaeffer.

I was first introduced to him in the early 80's. Studying ancient philosophy at university, I was really getting mega-confused. Schaeffer entered assuring me I could be both evangelical and idiot-free.

While I retained my evangelicalism, thanks to Schaeffer, some would largely question whether I ever attained to being idiot-free:)

Peace today. With that, I am...

Peter

Timotheos

I first heard Francis Schaeffer in 1980 at Liberty University (of all places!), and he (and his dear wife Edith) sorta inverted my wife and I's myopic worldview - in a good way, of course. I am particularly grateful that he started me down the road to an increasingly expanding and joyful God-aesthetic in thinking about creation, art, music, architecture, etc.

So thanks for the article, Peter. It brings back many fond memories of bygone years.

Of course you have not attained to being idiot-free...look how many are attracted to your blog! :-)

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

peter lumpkins

Timotheos

You seem well & I am glad to hear it. I knew we had much in common! Schaeffer is our glue (outside our Lord, of course).

Yeah, I wondered whether I should have posted that silly ticker-thing. It's all relative--kinda like age, I suppose. "Old" compared to whom? Or, "fatness": fat compared to whom? Or ugly: ugly compared to whom? Hence, Many readers? Compared to whom?:)

Take care. With that, I am...

Peter

Michael Westmoreland-White

I am trying to understand why you admire Schaeffer. He argued against church-state separation. He argued for Calvinism, indeed, that form of Calvinism called Reconstructionism with its postmillenialism, capitalism, and theocracy--all much more open in his son-in-law Rushdooney, but in Schaeffer, too. There is simply so much in his views that are against what you espouse. So, what do you find helpful?

peter lumpkins

Michael,

I do have some things I could note about Dr. Schaeffer's contribution to my own thinking, but I think I need to tidy up a bit first.

Dr. Schaeffer did not argue against church-state separation. He said:

"We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country. To say it another way, 'We should not wrap christianity in our national flag.'"

It was not separation of church & state to which he was opposed; it was the divorce of God from government.

Similarly, Michael, Dr. Schaeffer was neither reconstructionist nor theocratic. Again, he writes:

"We must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of a theocracy. Let me say with great emphasis Witherspoon, Jefferson, the American Founders had no idea of a theocracy. That is made plain by the First Amendment, and we must continually emphasize the fact that we are not talking about some kind, or any kind, of a theocracy....There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ, the King returns. The whole 'Constantine mentality' from the fourth century up to our day was a mistake....Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day."

Thus, Schaeffer possessed no grand illusions about turning this country into a police state run by christians. In fact, Reconstructionists themselves blasted his "Christian Manifesto" as being non-Christian.

Nor was Schaeffer a post-millenialist; rather he was a pre-millenialist.

He was Calvinist, as you rightly point out, but he was of the stripe that many Calvinists today do not so follow. His view of "Free-will" is definitively libertarian in nature and believed that was the connectiing point between all people made in God's Image.

And, one could read him for a good long spell and never really gather he was Reformed. Perhaps that's because he rarely mentioned "confessional" christianity.

As for Rushdoony being his son-in-law, Michael, I think you have him confused with somebody else. Schaeffer was born 4 years later than Rushdoony.

Interestingly, over at Mainline Baptists, Dr. Prescott posted yesterday on Schaeffer as well (though in a coincidental type way). He made similar statements there saying Schaeffer depended much on Rushdoony's work, etc, even recalling his days in seminary devouring Schaeffer's work and the fact that Schaeffer constantly quoted from Rushdoony's works--especially in Scheffer's work, A Christian Manifesto."

I responded to Dr. Prescott that it seemed odd as I read his post. So I checked the index in The Complete Works of F.S. and not one reference is noted about Rushdoony. The last time I checked, my post was not listed nor had Dr. Prescott responded.

Sorry for the tome, Michael. Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Michael Westmoreland-White

Thanks, Peter. I am no Schaeffer scholar and am willing to be corrected. But I think he gave mere lip service to church-state separation. His Christian Manifesto may have been blasted by Reconstructionists, but it became a blueprint for those "Christian Nationalists" that wedded Christianity to Republicanism. He was, at least, accomadationist in his view of church-state relations.

Also, his books on apologetics are full of errors in facts because he did NOT check his sources carefully before publication. But that's a different issue--and one you may have caught me at in my initial Schaeffer post.

Your post at Mainstream Baptists is now up--Bruce takes some time, sometimes. But he does not seem to have replied to you specifically.

Maybe the relationship between Schaeffer and Dominionism is like that between Nietszche and the Nazis--the latter twist the former, but there is definitely material there to BE twisted.

Grace and peace,

The comments to this entry are closed.