For many evangelicals Francis Schaeffer is a household name as an apologist and a cultural observer and commentator. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Schaeffer became more involved in politics than he had been previously. Political activists in favor of the prolife cause utilized books like A Christian Manifesto and What Ever Happened to the Human Race? as political and cultural resources. Other books had strong political-public theology perspectives, not least of which is his argument for ecological stewardship in Pollution and the Death of Man. However, many have misunderstood or misconceived his political perspective.
Leaders and participants of the Religious Right undoubtedly claim(ed) Schaeffer and his work as a seminal influence on their political project.[1] Even more, the subtitle of his son’s autobiography insinuates a high level of involvement in the founding of the Religious Right.[2] Yet one wonders whether Schaeffer’s public theology and politics were co-opted by this political coalition for political gains.[3] In fact, the leaders of the Religious Right did not emphasize several of Schaeffer’s works on public theology, because they seemed ill-fitted for their larger political vision.
Schaeffer influenced the Moral Majority and evangelicals but also a generation of disenfranchised young skeptics. He stood resolutely for inerrancy, while also beckoning the church to practice love and unity. He fought for the right to life not only in regards to abortion but also infanticide and euthanasia. He cared not only about challenging secularism but also about promoting a proper view of the arts and encouraging environmental stewardship. To be sure, these issues have not always fit easily into a particular political vision. However, they all find a place within a broad theological understanding of Christian practice within a given culture.
Uniquely, Schaeffer seems to have stood resolutely in favor of a biblically-rich cultural conservatism. He encouraged retrieving those components of culture that reflected the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Christian worldview. Yet, in his political involvement, he sought to be both conservative and prophetic. This paper will give a primer to Schaeffer’s larger political perspective, analyzing his political perspective.
Conservative But Not Religious Right
Some have argued that the Religious Right co-opted Schaeffer, using him for political purposes. Worse yet, some even argue that he himself was a card-carrying member.[4] The Religious Right often viewed America’s relationship to Christianity as a fusion that made America uniquely “a Christian nation” and operated with a high level of zeal.[5] While Schaeffer’s perspective on some political matters remains unclear, he was explicit regarding America’s relationship to Christianity: “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.’”[6] This declaration was not an isolated comment but a sentiment he reiterated elsewhere.
He writes, in The Church and the End of the Twentieth Century, that“patriotic loyalty must not be identified with Christianity. As Christians we are responsible, under the Lordship of Christ in all of life, to carry the Christian principles into our relationship to the state. But we must not make our country and Christianity to be synonymous.”[7] Further, he understood political institutions to have their place under the lordship of Christ and not under totalitarian rule: “Neither a church which puts itself between the individual and God nor a state which demands primary allegiance has such a [totalitarian] right. There is a legitimate place for both the state and church, but not at the centre. The centre must be a Person.”[8] Clearly, for Schaeffer, Jesus is the center of our lives.[9]Subsequently, politics and national allegiance have a place farther down the hierarchy.
Schaeffer’s political leanings are more nuanced than some may think. He writes in Manifesto, “As Christians we must stand absolutely and totally opposed to the whole humanist system, whether it is controlled by conservative or liberal elements. Thus Christians must not become officially aligned with either group just on the basis of the name it uses.”[10] When Schaeffer refers to “conservatives” here, he is most likely referring to classical liberals who were conservative humanists. Schaeffer himself seemed to hold consistently to a conservative political perspective, though one rooted in a transcendent source.
This position may have been a mixture of his theological conviction, his earlier interactions with Carl McIntire, and his own historical context. He found a connection with the “minority of the Silent Majority.”[11] Pro-life issues, resistance against secularization, and more inevitably aligned Schaeffer with one political party more than the other. However, he was clear to distinguish between political and theological categories. Schaeffer resisted an explicit connection to a particular political party, though he certainly had leanings.[12] Still, Schaeffer also had an active vision for political and cultural engagement.
Culturally Conservative and Prophetic
While Schaeffer would largely be considered a political conservative, and certainly culturally conservative given his various theological stances, he also argued for a prophetic and at times “revolutionary” approach to politics. He writes, “One of the greatest injustices we do to our young people is to ask them to be conservative. Christianity is not conservative, but revolutionary. To be conservative today is to miss the whole point, for conservatism means standing in the flow of the status quo, and the status quo no longer belongs to us.”[13]
We should not miss Schaeffer’s larger point. Schaeffer is not adopting a revolutionary philosophy that violently tears down good structures of society; instead, he is saying that Christians should stand against the cultural zeitgeist whenever it conflicts with Christian truth. Because of Schaeffer’s willingness to challenge both outside and inside his own camp, it may be helpful to conceptualize Schaeffer’s public theology in the role of a prophet. In doing so, some have labeled Schaeffer as Jeremiah Redivivus.[14]
Schaeffer certainly had his share of jeremiads and sought to warn his listeners of encroaching evils and the ever-present “line of despair,” while also declaring Christ’s Lordship for all of life.[15] In doing so, he held to a soft Kuyperianism as he operated in a prophetic role.[16] He himself states, “Jesus cannot be said to be Savior unless we also say he is Lord. And we cannot honestly and rightly say he is our Lord if he is only a Lord of part of life and not of the totality of life, including all the social and political and cultural life.”[17] Accordingly, Schaeffer felt it necessary to proclaim the truth of reality as found objectively in God’s Word, pointing out where his listeners’ beliefs and practices diverged from the Scriptures. James Patterson writes, “Like Jeremiah of old, Schaeffer soberly accepted the prophetic mantle to proclaim a message of doom to his own generation.”[18] To note, Ranald Macaulay records Schaeffer repeatedly stating that he was no prophet, and yet Macaulay felt it was the best way to describe him.[19]
To be clear, Schaeffer did not relegate himself simply and solely to a message of doom to his own generation or the next but often offered hope and tangible ways in which to correct the current projection of culture. Ranald Macaulay writes, “He continued to warn, but his warnings came from a yearning, not a hopeless heart.”[20] One could argue that some of Schaeffer’s later books took on the tone of a lament, but that misunderstands Schaeffer’s goal and ethos. The majority of Schaeffer’s work certainly has a prophetic voice—seeking to herald the truth of reality in order for people to find meaning in God’s “true truth.”[21] In following the tradition of understanding all of one’s life under Christ’s Lordship, Schaeffer was concerned about the danger of divorcing one’s personal faith from their public witness.[22]
Conclusion
Schaeffer joined with similar voices when he decried the evils of abortion—whether or not they joined the chorus on other issues. He also heard the declarations of those who spoke about a Christian consensus, even though they may have not agreed on every point. Yet Schaeffer was quick to note when both believers and unbelievers alike had not inclined their ears to truth God had spoken clearly in His Word. Schaeffer, as a prophet in the twentieth century, sat as a watchman, declaring what he saw—often intertwining a message of warning and hope. Schaeffer stood contra mundum, though not to forsake the world, but instead for the sake of the world.
Should we emulate Schaeffer’s political vision? In many ways, it is the model we find in Scripture. We should simultaneously conserve those institutions and ideas of our culture that reflect the beauty and truth of the Christian worldview while also decrying the evils and harm that is being done against God’s image bearers throughout our society. We prophetically speak about God’s truth and love, while also calling evil for what it is.
[1] For various views on the relation between Francis Schaeffer and the Religious Right, see Charles S. Broomfield, “Francis A. Schaeffer: The Force Behind the Evangelical Takeover of the Republican Party in America” (Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2013); J. Budziszewski, ed. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); Christopher Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders, 2nd ed. (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 1985); Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States (New York: The Guilford Press, 1995); Barry Hankins, Francis Schaeffer And the Shaping of Evangelical America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Tim LaHaye, The Battle for the Mind: A Subtle Warfare (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1980); Earl Lee, “Francis Schaeffer: Prophet of the Religious Right,” The Humanist 48, no. 5 (1988): 27; George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); James Risen and Judy L. Thomas, Wrath Of Angels: The American Abortion War (New York: Basic, 1999); Ronald A. Wells, “Schaeffer on America,” in Ronald W. Ruegsegger, ed., Reflections on Francis Schaeffer (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986); John Whitehead, “By Teaching, By Life, and By Action: Law and Government,” in Lane T. Dennis, Francis Schaeffer: Portraits of a Man and His Work (Wheaton: Crossway, 1986); and Garry Wills, Under God: Religion and American Politics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991).
[2] See Frank Schaeffer, 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 (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2008).
[3] For the purpose of this paper, we should understand public theology loosely as the theological engagement and discourse with the larger public in which the theologian finds his context and/or audience, with special attention given to political themes.
[4] Barry Hankins records Mark Noll’s view of Schaeffer being “co-opted” by the Far Right, though he “was an inspiration to some evangelicals on the political left” in the 1960s. Noll to Kenneth Woodward, November 3, 1982, personal correspondence, as cited in Barry Hankins, “‘I’m Just Making a Point’: Francis Schaeffer and the Irony of Faithful Christian Scholarship,” Fides et Historia 39, no. 1 (2007): 23.
[5] Marsden writes, “After 1976 it became clear that a substantial evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal-charismatic constituency could be mobilized around these issues [anti-abortion, anti-pornography, anti-ERA, and symbolic issues such as school prayer]. . . . the religious New Right drew in the natural Anglo-Protestant evangelical constituency of the South, which adopted the renewed Christian America ideal with particular fervor” (Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 95-96.
[6] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1985), 5:485–496.
[7] Francis A. Schaffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century,in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5:485–486.
[8] Francis A. Schaeffer, Ash Heap Lives: 16 Biblical Studies from L’Abri (London: Norfolk Press, 1975), 178–79.
[9] Schaeffer writes in a letter, “On my part, I feel increasingly in the other direction—that if we are to know the fullest blessing of God, there must be no final authority to human leadership of organizations, or even to organizations as such. Rather, we must urge each other not even to give final authority to principles about Christ, but only to the person of Christ. . . . it seems to me that the purpose of the church—to preach the gospel—has been forgotten. With this has come a great “political” emphasis which disturbs me greatly.” Francis A. Schaeffer, Letters of Francis A. Schaeffer: Spiritual Reality in the Personal Christian Life, ed. Lane T. Dennis (Wheaton: Crossway, 1986), 52.
[10] Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 5:77–78.
[11] Edgar, “Francis Schaeffer and the Public Square,” in J. Budziszewski, ed. Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006),169.
[12] Lane Dennis argues this theory of “co-opt” to be an ideological critique of the evangelical left. Dennis cites the following as ideological responses: Richard V. Pierard, “The Unmaking of Francis Schaeffer: An Evangelical Tragedy,” The Wittenburg Door, May 1984; Ronald A. Wells, “Francis Schaeffer’s Jeremiad: A Review Article,” The Reformed Journal (1982): 16–20; Darryl G. Hart, “The Schaeffer Gap,” The Reformed Journal (1983): 6–7; Mark A. Noll, “When Bad Books Happen to Good Causes: A Review Article,” The Reformed Journal (1984): 27. See Dennis, “Schaeffer and His Critics,” 232n44.
[13] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of The Twentieth Century,in Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 4:78.
[14] James A. Patterson, “Cultural Pessimism in Modern Evangelical Thought: Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, and Charles Colson,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 4 (2006): 810.
[15] Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There,in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 1:8.
[16] Marsden seems to acknowledge some level of influence from Kuyper on Schaeffer, at least in the contention of worldviews. Yet he also labels Schaeffer as a fundamentalist and “quasi-philosopher.” See Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, 108. Others have noted a more direct influence from Kuyper on Schaeffer. See Bill Nyman, “Francis Schaeffer’s Relevance to Contemporary Apologetics,” KOERS: Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 85, no. 1 (2020): 1–18.
[17] Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 4:363. Emphasis added.
[18] Patterson, “Cultural Pessimism in Modern Evangelical Thought,” 810.
[19] Ranald Macaulay, “Francis Schaeffer in the Twenty-First Century,” in Bruce Little, ed., Francis Schaeffer: A Mind and Heart for God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010), 51.
[20] Macaulay, “Francis Schaeffer in the Twenty-First Century,” 57.
[21] Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There,in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 1:181.
[22] Timothy George and Charles Colson, “Flaming Truth: Recalling Francis Schaeffer’s Challenge,” Christianity Today, February 15, 2012.
August 17, 2023
An exquisite article, really good and initiated…
THANKS
Rolf Östlund – Sweden