How Should We Then Live Part 10: Final Choices (II)

Schaeffer then launches into a discussion regarding civil liberties and the role of the state and how under the Christian consensus freedoms were able to flourish without chaos (for the racial-tribal majority we might add) and yet once the consensus was removed, the very same freedoms became self-destructive.

Again, not everything he says here is wrong but the framing is erroneous. The issue was not with regard to the presence of a Christian consensus but in terms of social values and the values of restraint and austerity as opposed the decadent effects of power, wealth, individualism and consumerism.

Now why would I say the Christian element is not so important in this case? I would simply point to previous examples of this. It fits a pattern and the pattern has little to do with a Christian consensus. While this is a problem for Schaeffer it certainly isn't for the New Testament-oriented Biblicist who denies the very concept of a Christian consensus to begin with. In other words Schaeffer is begging the question and since his assumed premise is wrong so are his conclusions.

Republican Rome valued austerity, selflessness and civic virtue. There was a consensus because the values were rooted in common tribe and in a context in which the social disparities were minimal. This combination helped to tamp down the anti-social impulses of individualism.

As Rome grew into an empire the laws once so prized were abused. Consumption became a virtue. Social disparity grew, leading to public and political tensions and the constant threat of civil war. Cosmopolitanism and wealth also decimated the old values and celebrity and the lust for raw power replaced civic virtue. Patriotism was abused and manipulated by men who sought their own aggrandisement.

And just like now, there were social critics and commentators who lamented the decline of order and values and Rome followed the same path that the American Empire is headed toward – an elite arose that vied for power and the unrest led to people embracing dictatorship as an efficient and effective means of rule and the keeping of the peace.

The pattern is more or less the same and yet the 'Christian consensus' factor had nothing do with it. It's a fiction. What Schaeffer is really talking about is a civilisational pattern that has occurred the world over and so as Christians we can admit that it's not always pleasant to live through the tumult and the changes – but at the same time we ought to have the discernment to understand what is happening. Our status as pilgrims stays the same and while there are some frustrations and dangers associated with the changes, there also opportunities and (at least in terms of the Church) some of the previous dangers and distractions are removed. We do not celebrate the decline in order and social values but as the order celebrated by Schaeffer was never Christian anyway – our perspective is a little more reflective. And given that the previous order (in being confused by many (both within and without the Church) with Christianity) was actually harmful to the overall testimony and mission of the Church – we hardly lament its passing.

Schaeffer's arguments in this episode are rooted in a series of false premises and therefore result in non sequitir – conclusions which do not result from the premise. His arguments are generally speaking null and void.

He may lament the imperial judiciary but seems unwilling to entertain the history and development of US jurisprudence and Constitutional Law. Again, I understand it's a short documentary but then you can't make such claims without even addressing the basis for making them.

He is right about the breakdown of the Right-Left divide at a certain point. That point is when society moves in a totalitarian direction. At that juncture the raw power of the state and its controlling mechanisms take over and the state becomes an end in and of itself. When it reaches that place, whether it dresses itself up in Right-wing garb or in the accoutrements of the Left – it makes little difference, especially to the non-aligned person just trying to survive under its shadow.

His analysis of social pressures is another one of those rather dated moments. In the late 1970's and 1980's there were real problems with inflation and economic malaise. I remember the crushing interest rates that brought down my father's business during that time. The US would emerge from this but the provided solutions would only unleash new problems which still vex and plague society to this day. Today, the Federal Reserve acts very differently in light of inflation but the US was undergoing an economic transition during that period. Some problems were solved but others were created.

The real issue is not inflation, high interest rates or the deficit. These are all factors that affect society but the real economic catastrophe that took place in the 1970's was (from the Church's perspective) the shift toward two-income family structures which would only intensify in the 1980's as the standard of living began to rise.

Terrorism was a threat in the 1970's and this would obviously intensify and yet (perhaps ironically) some nineteen years after 9/11 and the launch of the War on Terror, it's actually less of a threat now. This is not because of a victory won but because the US in moving on has generated new enemies – and as such it is focusing less on the jihadis it once so vigorously created and sought.

Terrorism was always used and manipulated by politicians to push through their agendas and yet it's not convenient at the moment as there are other threats.

Of course in the years since 9/11, the greatest terroristic threat at least in the West has come from the radical Right and I'm afraid this is likely to get worse. While Schaeffer pulled no actual triggers, few would dispute his role in inspiring the anti-abortion movement. This combined with Dominionism caused some – those on the fringes of the larger movement – to take violent terroristic action.

The threat of war remains and in some sense is greater today as the relative stability of the Cold War has been removed. Of course in 1977 it didn't seem possible that the Cold War would end before the next decade was complete.

Food and resource shortages continue to be a problem and the competition is a driving factor in global struggle and conflict. But it must be understood that these factors are intensified by market manipulation, speculation and easily fall prey to Great Power politics. It's not just the stress of population though that is real enough to be sure.  Many of Schaeffer's ideological descendants downplay and deny this fact and would even take issue with Schaeffer's emphasis regarding it.

But his conclusion was wrong. He suggests (in a spirit of lamentation) massive redistribution schemes are on the horizon, failing to grasp the power of the markets and their inherent cruelty. We're nowhere near such a scheme. In fact it's not even on the table.

In his final Dominionist-driven appeal, we're told Society will be saved   by a return to God's revelation. And how does this harmonize with the equally venerated US Constitution and its liberal values? And in light of 1 Corinthians 1-3, can we really take Schaeffer's claim seriously? Just how is this accomplished apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit? And has the Holy Spirit promised to work through the state? The legislature? War? Cultural manipulation? Schaeffer repeatedly begs the question.

Does Schaeffer believe in the role of the Holy Spirit or is that Kingdom-building role somehow fulfilled in the cultural institutions of man? I would need to see evidence that the Spirit promises to work through these means but the evidence just isn't there.

The conclusions while I'm sure deeply stirring to some are simply put – nonsense, an exhibition of wishful non-reason rooted in a dream-driven eisegesis of both history and the text of Scripture.

It was a sad and rather weak end to the series, but I believe one more article is required to consider its impact, the aftermath and Schaeffer's legacy.

Continue reading Part 11