Though the series ended with Part 10, we're using this 11th
installment to reflect on the legacy of Schaeffer and his film. While at this
point it's very dated, the leaders of contemporary Evangelicalism were greatly inspired
by Schaeffer and his work. Whether they read his books or not, chances are they
saw these films. Virtually every leader of the movement was either directly
inspired by him or by those who took up his mantle. His presence both hovers and looms over the
Evangelical world.
During the 1980's and 1990's this documentary series was
being played in churches all across America – and their impact ranged far
beyond the Reformed and Calvinistic sphere. How much people remember, how much
they really understood, I don't know, but the simple message got through – a
society not built on godly foundations will fall and so to save Christian America
we (the Church) need to get politically and socially active.
That message got through and transformed the Church. Any form
of perceived retreatism or refusal to be culturally and politically active was
attacked as Gnosticism and worldly compromise – not living and thinking with a
Christian worldview. After decades, this flawed and falsely premised message
has taken over – though the leaders of Evangelicalism remain frustrated with
their lack of success and the fact that cultural victory still eludes them.
This has caused them to become even more aggressive in the messaging.
Even in 2020, I still hear many Dominionist preachers talk
about how their doctrines are not being preached in pulpits across the land,
how Evangelicals teach flight from the world and forms of dualism. Frankly, I
don't know what they're talking about. I wish they were right. I wish there
were churches repudiating their message.
If they mean that there are churches that just teach
compromise, then I'll grant that point. But compromise and worldliness are not
separatism – not even close.
But instead all I hear is Dominionism. It is ubiquitous. It
is the orthodoxy of our day. While not all groups embrace Theonomy or overt
Postmillennialism they nevertheless have embraced the basic concepts of
Dominion – that we're called to sanctify culture and that all spheres of life
are holy. While Postmillennialism may not be the dominant millennial view, its
general eschatological ethos has won the day. And the accusations of
Evangelical Gnosticism and retreatism are just expressions of frustration over
the culture war they cannot seem to win.
They have their critics but they mostly are located within
the sphere of theological liberalism. The voices speaking against this paradigm
on the basis of the New Testament are few – so few as to barely even register.
In terms of the debate within the Church, they've won – at
least for now. The movement and its ideas have gone in different directions to
be sure and over the past few years (mostly in light of Trump) the one-time
fissures which mildly divided the movement have turned into chasms and the
theological bloc is beginning to seriously fragment. And yet, the debate is not
over dominion or the propriety of social transformation. They're simply
debating over what that looks like.
Even the handful of Fundamentalist churches that are left
have fallen prey to this doctrine. If they resist it all it's only in certain
spheres – they might reject psychology for example or something along those
lines but for many of them Dominionism has crept in through the auspices of
patriotism and the supposed virtues of Capitalism. It's really the same forces
that have worked to destroy their separatist ethos that began in the aftermath
of the World Wars. After seventy five years its work is just about done and the
movement is even now taking its last gasps and struggling to survive.
The manifestation of Dominionism is not always principled. It
easily combines and is confused with patriotism and nationalism and many have
used it to add a theological gloss to the Right-wing views. Others are
sidetracked by the rabid individualism of Libertarianism and still others are
equally influenced by Far Right (Bircher type) views which don't always
properly conform with Dominionist thought.
The whole landscape has changed and fragmented in ways that
Schaeffer could not have imagined in 1977.
Ironically he was already worried by the early 1980's. In the
last few years before his death he was sounding the alarm. On the one hand he
feared that the 'Christian' culture of the United States was crossing a Rubicon
and his 1981 Christian Manifesto
helped to steer the newly unified Christian Right into the abortion debate and
to rally around that cause. Before this – though the history has been largely
erased by Evangelical leaders – one of the greatest concerns pertained to Federal
enforcement of school integration. By the 1990's, this narrative had been
erased and re-cast and many Evangelicals (as well as some Right-wing activists)
have actually (if laughably) attempted to appropriate the civil rights
narrative and even the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. – even though many of
us remember when he was demonised and hated within these same circles.
But perhaps more importantly Schaeffer's Manifesto (a reactionary response to Marx, even though Marxism has
little to no influence or standing in American society) promoted resistance and
flirted with the idea of violence. Twisting Romans 13 and other passages, he
dances around the issue of revolution and violence even while praising the idea
and the heritage of revolution – as it occurred in the British and American
traditions.
His language inspired people like Randall Terry and the
founders of Operation Rescue. Unsurprisingly he also inspired some of the
radicals in the movement who assassinated abortion doctors. Schaeffer's
language remains ambiguous enough for his apologists to claim plausible deniability
– but a careful and honest read must acknowledge that he was at the very least
planting the seed of violence.
Schaeffer's swan song, The
Great Evangelical Disaster sounds a desperate alarm. Repeatedly Schaeffer
warns of accommodation and its dangers. He's alarmed that the Evangelical
movement so vitalised in the 1970's was already on a wayward trajectory of
worldliness and compromise.
And even while he trembles at what is to come he continues
his Kuyperian call for Christians to embrace all spheres of life. While the
term 'worldview' was not as in vogue as it is today, the concept is there, even
omnipresent.
And yet by definition worldviewism even when labeled as
'Biblical' is a form of accommodation. Once again this is one of those tragic
ironies with regard to Schaeffer and his myriad disciples. The very thing he's
warning against and criticising is in fact the very thing he's promoting. He's
literally sawing off the branch he's sitting on.
Worldviewism arose out of the crisis of the Industrial and
Revolutionary age in which epistemology and the social consensus (which is not
quite as Schaeffer sees it) was fragmented. Worldview is an attempt to wrest
back the narrative from the forces of modernity by appropriating its knowledge
and synthesizing it with Christian truths. In many respects it is a child of
the Enlightenment, a way for Christianity to function within the new society
and maintain its cultural relevance.
Under this attempt to Christianise the world's knowledge, the
Dominion-driven Church could make an attempt to influence and re-Christianise
society. But instead worldviewism would merely set the stage for an escalation of
the epistemological crisis born of the Reformation. Worldviewism sought to give
the Bible priority while in the mainstream sectors of Reformation theology (the
theological liberalism of the academy and Mainline churches), the epistemology
of the Enlightenment would come to dominate. But here's the key point – both
camps were being affected by and shaped by the Enlightenment. That's not in
question. The only question is with regard to degree. And thus the result would
end up being the same – the only question was with regard to how quickly the
effects would come to bear.
A form of pre-Enlightenment Christianity, the epistemological
synthesis of Protestant Scholasticism inadvertently laid the groundwork for theological
liberalism in the 19th century as Christians constantly sought for
ways in which they could make the Biblical message harmonise with the dictates
of logic, reason and the ever 'advancing' knowledge of the world. The
Enlightenment which arose not long after quickly swept it away. Worldviewism is
just a later expansion and re-casting of the Scholastic project (but in the
context of a post-Christian fragmented society) attempting to lay out
principles which would keep the Christendom project from veering off track as
theological liberalism did – but they're fooling themselves and not even forty
years after Schaeffer's death the spectre of theological liberalism is rearing
its head in these very circles. Many leaders are baffled by this – but they
shouldn't be.
By the 20th century the various crises in the Church
and culture had become acute and Fundamentalists were pulling back from the
culture and circling the wagons. Confessionalists were reduced to tiny minority
sects. And yet there were those who sought to find a way for the conservatives
left in the mainstream churches to revitalise and re-take the culture. These
New Evangelicals found an ally in the theology of Dominion and the ideas of
figures like Abraham Kuyper who created paradigms in which Christians could
still seek a Christian culture in a fragmented industrial and revolutionary
age.
These social conservatives (within the Classically Liberal
framework) in seeking to counter the flood of theological and cultural shift, more
or less started building their house on the same foundation as Kuyper. Weaker
in theology, they nevertheless emulated the basic premise of culture
transformation by means of infiltrating and 'Christianising' the various
spheres – harmonising Christian idealism with the knowledge of the world in an
attempt to shape and transform these areas of culture and eventually (it was
hoped) reconstitute some form of Christendom.
And as such this movement – the New Evangelicalism that grew
up in the aftermath of World War II, represents the final and utter compromise
of conservative Protestantism. It began a process that would (under
conservative guise) embrace the same kind of philosophical compromise and
synthesis as 19th century liberal theology. Traveling by a different
road it would lead to the same place – worldliness in thought and life.*
It was already starting to bear some serious fruit in the
late 1970's and yet it was evidently rotten fruit and while many leaders were
encouraged by the numbers and growing financial and political influence,
Schaeffer did have enough discernment to realise this creature that had emerged
was not born of Biblical Christianity. And yet he didn't know what to do – so
he kept (as it were) pouring water on a grease fire only making it worse.
And no surprise his ideas led to a kind of schizophrenia in
terms of praxis or application. The definition of Christian was confused and
since secularism was presented as the great enemy (as opposed to the New
Testament motifs of the Church engaged in a battle with evil spiritual forces
and false teaching), is it any surprise that Schaeffer promoted the concept of cobelligerence – Evangelicals
collaborating with Roman Catholics to fight secularism?
He feared accommodation and yet his worldview teaching
essentially absolutised it. He feared accommodation and yet did more than
anyone else to initiate ecumenical relations with Rome – the very compromise of
Protestantism in its essence. Even his video series implicitly teaches this
message. According to Schaeffer's reading of history, the Magisterial
Reformation may have been the apotheosis of Western Civilisation but even
Rome's 1000 year reign over the Middle Ages wasn't so bad – certainly preferable
to the post-Enlightenment era. He's not consistent in this message but it's
there.
And so while many were blindsided by Charles Colson's
Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) project in 1994, they shouldn't have
been. Colson clearly viewed himself as Schaeffer's heir and even attempted to
appropriate and update his famous How
Shall We Then Live series by merely tinkering with the title. A ruthless
and cunning political operative, Colson was an intellectual lightweight and had
to recruit an academic to actually do the work. And who did he get – Nancy
Pearcey, another name closely associated with the Schaeffer legacy.**
Schaeffer's cultural interactions are rooted in a host of
false epistemological and hermeneutical assumptions and this too has led to
great confusion. He did much to promote the Christian America mythology and
while he lamented the compromise he saw in his last years – the truth is it was
a logical outcome of the larger movement's guiding principles. Under his
influence and along with others such as Billy Graham, the Bible was relegated
to a secondary status – the Culture War would become supreme and this would
become abundantly clear within a decade of Schaeffer's 1984 death.
His end is pitiable as he clearly was in a state of despair –
seeing but not seeing what was to come. According to his son Frank he was
flirting with Rome – probably not in a serious capacity but he was (it would
seem) desperate for some kind of stability and grounding – the very things that
drive many toward Rome and away from the shaky and unstable ground of
Evangelicalism and its endless fragmentation and consumer-driven approaches to
ecclesiology. In attempting to maintain relevance and influence in the world,
Evangelicalism just ends up becoming the world. It's a functional apostasy akin
to what happened in the post-Constantinian era. In Old Testament times it was
exemplified by the syncretism of Jeroboam and Ahaz. In the New Testament era of
the first century, the process is represented by the Hellenistic Judaizing
sects and false apostles that are ever looming in the background of the
epistles.
Schaeffer's confusion of culture and Biblical Christianity
produces the same kind of results and he laid the foundation stones for
generations of false teachers leading the Church down wayward paths – pursuing
politics and cultural influence, focusing on wasteful projects and lame
attempts to redeem Western culture. As a consequence alien ideas were embraced,
corruption set in, and many evil compromises were made – New Testament ethics
were jettisoned in principle and in practice.
The functional apostasy was well underway in the 1970's and
would spiral out of control in the decadence of the 1990's and beyond.
Worldview and Dominion were supposed to ground the
Confessional and Evangelical movements and yet the historical record has
demonstrated these ideas have produced the opposite results.
The leaders of the Evangelical movement, men like Jerry
Falwell and Charles Colson all took inspiration from Schaeffer. From radio
preachers like the ever-therapeutic Chip Ingram and Chuck Smith to political
figures such as Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin have all been inspired by him.
To be accurate, almost all the leaders of the modern Evangelicalism and the
Christian Right have been influenced directly by Schaeffer or by others who
were influenced by him. Schaeffer has rightly been called one of the godfathers
of the movement.
What a sad legacy. Almost every Confessionalist and theological
conservative admits the movement is a disaster – but no one seems willing or
able to identify the elephant in the room or to utilise another cliché –
proclaim that the emperor has no clothes.
Accommodation and chaos, the forces he wanted to fight in
society – he invited into the church. He built the siege engines to assail the
secular fortress but didn't realise his building materials were the dismantled
walls of the Church - his ammunition, the very stones of that wall. He
dismantled the wall of not just protection, antithesis and division but of
identity – blending Zion with Babylon making them indistinguishable. His
project failed. His legacy ashes. His end tragic.
He was right. There was a coming 'Great Evangelical
Disaster', but he was one of its key architects.
The hero of the movement that identifies itself as Evangelicalism
should be considered a wolf in sheep's clothing – an accommodationist Judaizer.
Along with Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer has done more to harm and destroy
the Church than perhaps anyone else. In the latter part of the 20th
century he must go down as a destroyer, one of the great villains that sowed
confusion, promulgated chaos, taught idolatry and strengthened the hands of
those that would do evil. A blind leader of the blind, his erroneous cultural
and philosophical commentaries are not informed by either Scripture or reality.
He taught heresy and undermined Scripture resulting in a twisted ethic and a
Church seeking to build the wrong kingdom using the wrong weapons and often
evil means. He is (in the end) exactly the sort of Judaizing syncretistic false
teacher we are warned about over and over again in the Scriptures.
----
* There are a small handful of Confessionalist denominations
that have refused to go along with the Evangelical project and yet coming from
the epistemological background of Protestant Scholasticism – they are not
nearly as far removed from it as they think are. And even many among them would
admit that they've been in no small part influenced by Evangelicalism. Many
(especially in Reformed circles) would also pay homage to Kuyper and his efforts
and from my standpoint the real difference between them and Evangelicalism is
that they are determined to hold to their Confessions while they seek to
influence culture. And if retaining the Confession means a less successful
result – they are willing to accept that. Aside from probably a more
intellectually robust elaboration of the relevant concepts, their overall
trajectory and emphasis isn't really that different. It's really more a
question of style and a refusal to capitulate to the pragmatism that Evangelicalism
so readily gives itself to.
**So pervasive is the theology of Dominionism that I remember
raising an eyebrow during the 2012 election when discussions of Michele
Bachmann were for a time in the news cycle. She had cited Schaeffer as an
influence and other authors and journalists made connections to Dominion
theology and in that process the name of Nancy Pearcey had come up.
Pearcey responded by saying that she had never even heard of
Dominion Theology – no small irony as her name (alongside her co-author Colson)
would be on a shortlist of the movement's intellectual leaders.
The reason she hasn't heard of it is that in those circles
it's viewed as historic orthodoxy. There's nothing unique about it that would
require a separate labeling. And yet the spectrum of Dominionist thought is certainly
there and able to be identified as a distinct category of thought. I'm afraid
it doesn't speak well of Pearcey that she's ignorant of this. Her statements
are actually something of an indictment against her. She's either ignorant or
guilty of trying to spin the issue. I was surprised but with little effort I
found a link to her statements:
And of course the frustration with secular authors is their
inability to navigate these waters – as many confuse Fundamentalism with
Dominionism even while they are in some ways opposites. Dominionists may indeed
hold to 'the Fundamentals' as it were but it doesn't make them Fundamentalists
as the movement existed in the early and mid-20th century.
And sorry, Nancy Pearcey is woefully mistaken if she thinks
anyone who holds to the historicity and inspiration of Genesis would just
simply accept the Dominionist interpretation of Genesis 1.26-28 as an abiding
post-lapsarian Cultural Mandate.
And Dominionism is by no means restricted to the sphere of
Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. It's a much wider spectrum – she
apparently doesn't understand its connections to figures like Kuyper and
Dooyeweerd.
I was pleased to find the link as I remembered Pearcey's
statement at the time and it kind of amazed me but upon reflection it made
sense. I remember another Reformed theologian from a few years ago arguing that
Transformationalism is the orthodoxy of our day. Transformationalism is of course
just another moniker for Dominionism. There is sometimes a subtle differentiation
made as indeed Dominionism represents a spectrum and yet the theologian was
correct. For example there are Reformed Two Kingdom-types that hold to
Kuyperianism and embrace Dominionist ideology and yet would eschew the label of
transformationalism.
It is the new orthodoxy and it's reached a point in which few
even know of any other alternatives.
It reminds me of how Dispensationalism once dominated the
Evangelical sphere. Growing up I thought everyone believed in that system and
was baffled to encounter those that didn't. I didn't think of it as
Dispensationalism. I simply thought it was what the Bible taught – didn't
everyone know that? But of course I was ignorant as I eventually found out.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.