A Journalism Lesson for the New Yorker
Aug 10, 2011
Joe Carter
Sara Lippincott, who worked in the New Yorker’s famed fact-checking department from 1966 until 1982, once told a class of journalism students that, “Each word in the piece that has even a shred of fact clinging to it is scrutinized, and, if passed, given the checker’s imprimatur, which consists of a tiny pencil tick.” Such excruciating attention to detail is rare nowadays—even at the New Yorker. The publication should have brought Ms. Lippincott in from retirement for Ryan Lizza’s recent article Leap of Faith. 
The excruciatingly long (8,300 word) feature is intended to be a magnum opus of revelations about presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. And indeed it does break new ground. Did you know that in a speech about her family moving to Iowa in 1857 she confused a plague of grasshoppers with a plague of locusts? Yes, you and I know that locusts are grasshoppers; Lizza and the New Yorker fact checkers probably do too. But if you put the words in scare quotes and imply that they are different you can give the impression that Bachmann somehow made a mistake.
Had Lizza simply stuck to such idiotic “gotcha” tactics I wouldn’t have given the article a second thought. I don’t have much interest in the presidential campaign of Bachmann (or anyone else right now) so I don’t feel the need to defend her. But Lizza trespassed on a subject that I do care about quite a lot, my intellectual hero Francis Schaeffer.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, Schaeffer’s work provided an opening to the intellectual depths of Christianity that had been sorely lacking in conservative Protestant Christianity. Schaeffer helped to restore the value of developing a Christian worldview and offered the intellectual tools that evangelicals needed to properly engage with the secular culture. The effect of his legacy still reverberates through evangelicalism. His influence shaped hundreds of evangelical leaders, including Chuck Colson, Jack Kemp, Ron Sider, Mark Noll—and Michele Bachmann.
Lizza includes a 1,200-word section explaining Schaeffer in terms intended to make him—and by proxy, Bachmann—appear to be an anti-American theocrat. This is quite a feat. Despite the fact that Schaeffer was a respected evangelical leader and the subject of numerous scholarly monographs, Lizza appears to have cribbed all his information about the theologian from liberal activists.
However, the article does have one redeeming value: professors and students of journalism now have a prime exhibit for what not to do if you want to be taken seriously. Here are four primary lessons that can be learned from Lizza’s piece:
Lesson #1: Make sure your quotes say what you claim they say — If you put words in quotes and credit them to a speaker, make sure you understand the context. For example, Lizza writes:
Francis Schaeffer instructed his followers and students at L’Abri that the Bible was not just a book but “the total truth.”
Schaeffer’s use of the phrase “total truth” refers not to the Bible but to Christianity. The quote is not taken from his books but from an address Schaeffer gave at the University of Notre Dame in 1981. The actual quote is:
Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Christianity, biblical Christianity, is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.
Lesson #2: Ensure that you use reliable sources — As I mentioned, Schaeffer has been the subject of numerous studies. There are dozens of qualified and reputable scholars who would be willing to explain his thought and influence. Unfortunately, while Lizza did find a PhD to provide a quote, he chose one that is known for being an unreliable source. Lizza writes,
[Schaeffer] was a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism, which relies on Genesis 1:26, where man is urged to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Sara Diamond, who has written several books about evangelical movements in America, has succinctly defined the philosophy that resulted from Schaeffer’s interpretation: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
First, there is no “school of thought” known as “dominionism.” The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation.
If Lizza had done his homework he would have found that Diamond’s mid-1980s “scholarship” is neither timely nor credible. For example, Diamond bases her contention that Schaeffer is a “dominionist” on his book A Christian Manifesto. The problem is that rather than claiming that “Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns”—Schaeffer says exactly the opposite:
[W]e must make definite that we are in no way talking about any kind of theocracy. Let me say that 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.
In the Old Testament there was a theocracy commanded by God. In the New Testament, with the church being made up of Jews and Gentiles, and spreading all over the known world from India to Spain in one generation, the church was its own entity. 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 own day was a mistake. . . . Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day. But through the centuries it has caused great confusion between loyalty to the state and loyalty to Christ, between patriotism and being a Christian. 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.”
By the way, the first paragraph of this quote can be found on the Wikipedia page for Schaeffer. Had Lizza merely been as diligent as a college freshman plagiarizing a term paper he would have discovered his error.
Lesson #3: If you claim something is said in a book, make sure it is said in that book — This is related to Lesson #1. It’s not that hard to track down sources when they are in print. If Lizza had taken the time to actually read the book he wouldn’t have made this bizarre claim:
In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed.
Anyone who has read the book knows that it says nothing of the sort. Throughout A Christian Manifesto Schaeffer advocates the use of “force”: “Force, as used in this book, means compulsion or constraint exerted upon a person (or persons) or on an entity such as the state.” [emphasis in original]
But couldn’t this mean “violence?” Schaeffer says no. In the only time that the word “violence” is used in the book, he condemns its use:
Two principles, however must always be observed. First, there must be a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise of force. Second, any overreaction crosses the line from force to violence. And unmitigated violence can never be justified.
Throughout the book Schaeffer makes it clear that the way to oppose abortion is through non-violent civil disobedience. His strategy includes a human life amendment, overturning Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, and legal and political actions against abortion providers. If all else fails, he says, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community by using a fearsome tactic: “doing such things as sit-ins in legislatures and courts, including the Supreme Court.”
If it can’t be found in the book, where did Lizza get the idea that the book advocates the “violent overthrow of the government?” Only one source could come up with a claim that stupid and dishonest: Francis Schaeffer’s estranged son Frank Schaeffer. In a 2008 blog entry for the Huffington Post, Frank says:
. . .when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. [emphasis added]
I won’t go into all the reasons that Frank Schaeffer is an unreliable source. Better men than me have spent thousands of words proving that Frank has lied about his father’s legacy. This is but one more example of the depths of which he will stoop, even when the evidence is open for examination. However, in his article, Lizza says that he talked to Frank and includes a lengthy quote from him. There is no doubt that Lizza took the “violent overthrow” claim from Frank’s blog post—there is no other source for the claim. Perhaps Lizza can explain why he used the words of the son and attributes them to the father.
Lesson #4: Don’t rely on fact-checkers to save you – If you lack journalistic integrity and basic research skills, even the world-renowned New Yorker fact-checking department can’t save you from embarrassing yourself.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
Ryan Lizza, A Leap of Faith
Frank Schaeffer, Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
Matthew J. Milliner, Crazy for God
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.10.2011 | 8:12am
Daniel Ritchie says:
Excellent work, Mr. Carter. If I think about why I continue to read various publications--"First Things" being one--it's because I trust the integrity of its writers and staff. So much is at stake in the content and tone of each word!
8.10.2011 | 8:43am
Edward Alleyn says:
Ryan Lizza is a Left-wing hack who used to write for The New Republic. "Integrity," professional or otherwise, does not seem to be one of his concerns.
8.10.2011 | 9:10am
Jim says:
The full-court press is on. Religion, or more precisely, Christianity, if it's to be tolerated at all, must present to the world the God of "The Shack," not the God of the Bible. Being "spiritual," "caring about the poor," being in favor of "peace," and being "tolerant," are in, but the 10 Commandments and "being perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" are out.
If you espouse anything different you are an intolerant, fundamentalist hater (again, only if you're Christian!). The MSM is "all in" on this agenda. Little Frankie Schaeffer is trying to lead the parade. He's trying to be the Francis Schaeffer of the new indifferent/agnostic elite.
If you espouse anything different you are an intolerant, fundamentalist hater (again, only if you're Christian!). The MSM is "all in" on this agenda. Little Frankie Schaeffer is trying to lead the parade. He's trying to be the Francis Schaeffer of the new indifferent/agnostic elite.
8.10.2011 | 10:18am
Jon Rowe says:
I wonder if it's proper to term Frankie Schaeffer "estranged" from his parents as Mr. Carter does in this piece. Is there any evidence that he was ever "estranged" from them while they were alive. And if not, how do you become "estranged" from dead people?
I'm not going to blame Frankie for not kissing his parents posterior. Truth can hard to get at. And usually when adult children have problems with their parents is because their parents in some way abused them (most often emotionally). The problem is the reverse psychological effect rebellion. If an emotional abuser in a position of authority over you says, "don't do heroin," they are still right that you shouldn't do heroin regardless of the wrong way they sent the message. Resentment stands in the way of getting to the right answer. Frankie should forgive his parents for emotionally abusing him.
I'm not going to blame Frankie for not kissing his parents posterior. Truth can hard to get at. And usually when adult children have problems with their parents is because their parents in some way abused them (most often emotionally). The problem is the reverse psychological effect rebellion. If an emotional abuser in a position of authority over you says, "don't do heroin," they are still right that you shouldn't do heroin regardless of the wrong way they sent the message. Resentment stands in the way of getting to the right answer. Frankie should forgive his parents for emotionally abusing him.
8.10.2011 | 10:56am
Collin Brendemuehl says:
An parallel issue also comes to mind:
Perhaps TNY is also in need of a competent editorial staff?
Perhaps TNY is also in need of a competent editorial staff?
8.10.2011 | 11:10am
David Nickol says:
All locusts are grasshoppers, but not all grasshoppers are locusts. Since the text of the family history says "grasshoppers," it is not necessarily a fact that the grasshoppers were locusts. It would be folly to elect someone to high office who is that cavalier about entomology. You can tell just by looking at Bachmann that she should not be president. Have you seen the cover of Newsweek?
8.10.2011 | 11:33am
Mark Donovan says:
@Jon Rowe
You are quite the expert. A child's problems are "usually" the fault of the parent's "abuse". Interesting. Then might we "usually" be able to blame the parents' problems on the grandparents? Oh, and where do the grandparents' problems originate? Why, of course, the great grandparents. BEAUTIFUL! I guess no one is to blame. I like it. We are innocent of all charges.
You are quite the expert. A child's problems are "usually" the fault of the parent's "abuse". Interesting. Then might we "usually" be able to blame the parents' problems on the grandparents? Oh, and where do the grandparents' problems originate? Why, of course, the great grandparents. BEAUTIFUL! I guess no one is to blame. I like it. We are innocent of all charges.
8.10.2011 | 11:36am
Alex says:
Thank you for this article. I read the bit on Bachmann yesterday. It was quite obvious that Ryan Lizza wanted me to be insulted at Ms. Bachmann's ignorance; and he did all he could undermine her by way of pointing out her miniscule mistakes (which you, to my great pleasure, exposed to be indicative of Lizza's faults--oh the irony!). Though I had never heard of Schaeffer before, I could sense that I was being presented with a watered-down, slanted interpretation of his ideas. And to top it all off, the artist's picture was also all part and parcel of rhetoric--just look at that big eyed and helplessly ignorant Christian! But even so, desipte all the snobby negativity that I was supposed to feel towards this disillusioned candidate, I finished the article with greater interest in her. The reason for this interest is that I was impressed to see a canditate running and speaking openly about her Christian convictions. Wow.
Thank you for revealing the lack of journalistic integrity from a very reputable and longstanding source: the New Yorker.
Thank you for revealing the lack of journalistic integrity from a very reputable and longstanding source: the New Yorker.
8.10.2011 | 11:56am
Peter Leavitt says:
Jon Rowe, "estrangement" is a decent word to describe Frank Schaeffer's vehement rejection of his deceased father's views. Frank's books are essentially heated and distorted rants against his father's alleged "fundamentalist" and radical theocratic views; something that Joe Carter in the limited space of a blog post has made reasonably clear. Do you have any hard evidence to refute Carter's view?
As to the implication in your post that Francis Schaeffer and his wife "abused" their son, what evidence do you have for that? While Frank came to vehemently disagree with his father's view, I've never read that they abused him emotionally. That is merely an unsupported supposition on your part.
The New Yorker has descended mainly to a leftist propaganda rag while pretending to its former true sophistication. How utterly sad this is for one who remembers the time of Harold Ross and E.B. White.
As to the implication in your post that Francis Schaeffer and his wife "abused" their son, what evidence do you have for that? While Frank came to vehemently disagree with his father's view, I've never read that they abused him emotionally. That is merely an unsupported supposition on your part.
The New Yorker has descended mainly to a leftist propaganda rag while pretending to its former true sophistication. How utterly sad this is for one who remembers the time of Harold Ross and E.B. White.
8.10.2011 | 11:58am
David R says:
@ David Nickol. I had to re-read your post. Sarcasm is hard to pick up on the computer.
8.10.2011 | 12:25pm
Jon Rowe says:
"A child's problems are 'usually' the fault of the parent's 'abuse'. Interesting. Then might we 'usually' be able to blame the parents' problems on the grandparents? Oh, and where do the grandparents' problems originate? Why, of course, the great grandparents. BEAUTIFUL! I guess no one is to blame. I like it. We are innocent of all charges. "
Well, I actually know of one very conservative Christian "authority" -- granted, he is a non-Trinitarian heretic -- who argues yes, and in fact this is the Adam and Eve syndrome. An unbroken chain of parent to child dysfunction -- parents corrupting their children into sin -- is the vessel for original sin that traces upwards to Eve and Satan himself.
Not sure if I believe that (because I'm not a Christian). But perhaps you should seriously consider this is Truth.
But I do know this; often when adult children persist in a state of rebellion against what their parents it's because their parents hurt them in some emotional way (sometimes worse; but I don't believe the Schaeffers ever beat or neglected Frankie).
Frankie details the emotional abuse in his book.
Rebecca: I guess it depends on how we define "abuse." Bipolar and other forms of depression are terrible things and no individual chooses to be subject to them. But if you have kids and subject them to your mood swings I do see this as a form of emotional abuse. So for instance when Francis Schaeffer gets upset at his wife and throws a plant at her and Frankie witnesses this, to me, this qualifies as emotional abuse of a child.
Well, I actually know of one very conservative Christian "authority" -- granted, he is a non-Trinitarian heretic -- who argues yes, and in fact this is the Adam and Eve syndrome. An unbroken chain of parent to child dysfunction -- parents corrupting their children into sin -- is the vessel for original sin that traces upwards to Eve and Satan himself.
Not sure if I believe that (because I'm not a Christian). But perhaps you should seriously consider this is Truth.
But I do know this; often when adult children persist in a state of rebellion against what their parents it's because their parents hurt them in some emotional way (sometimes worse; but I don't believe the Schaeffers ever beat or neglected Frankie).
Frankie details the emotional abuse in his book.
Rebecca: I guess it depends on how we define "abuse." Bipolar and other forms of depression are terrible things and no individual chooses to be subject to them. But if you have kids and subject them to your mood swings I do see this as a form of emotional abuse. So for instance when Francis Schaeffer gets upset at his wife and throws a plant at her and Frankie witnesses this, to me, this qualifies as emotional abuse of a child.
8.10.2011 | 12:28pm
Jon Rowe says:
Great to hear from you again my friend Peter Leavitt.
See my above comment for what qualifies as emotional abuse. It could be that all parents emotionally abuse their children in this way; I'm not sure the behavior is that universal. But, as a Christian, you should understand that the universal defense ("everyone does this") doesn't get you off the hook. The doctrine of original sin teaches "everyone does this" may mean everyone is guilty, not that everyone is excused.
See my above comment for what qualifies as emotional abuse. It could be that all parents emotionally abuse their children in this way; I'm not sure the behavior is that universal. But, as a Christian, you should understand that the universal defense ("everyone does this") doesn't get you off the hook. The doctrine of original sin teaches "everyone does this" may mean everyone is guilty, not that everyone is excused.
8.10.2011 | 12:32pm
andrew says:
francis schaeffer was influential, but his survey of western civilization -- how should we then live? -- is shockingly simplistic.... as if it had been culled from newspaper clippings and encyclopedia entries.
8.10.2011 | 12:46pm
David Nickol says:
David R,
I wouldn't call it sarcasm. I'd call it pulling Joe Carter's leg. FWIW, Michele Bachmann is about the last person I want to see as president, but I do think the Newsweek cover was reprehensible.
I wouldn't call it sarcasm. I'd call it pulling Joe Carter's leg. FWIW, Michele Bachmann is about the last person I want to see as president, but I do think the Newsweek cover was reprehensible.
8.10.2011 | 12:59pm
Charlie Collier says:
Joe, Lizza is making himself available to answers questions about his article today at 3pm.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2011/08/michele-bachmann-ryan-lizza.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2011/08/michele-bachmann-ryan-lizza.html
8.10.2011 | 1:18pm
Jon Rowe says:
Just to clarify my comment to Mark Donovan (though I think closely read my comments he understand what I write next):
The religious figure I'm referring to who believes all parents corrupt their into sin in an upward unbroken chain that reaches to Eve and then Satan, obviously does not believe:
"I guess no one is to blame. I like it. We are innocent of all charges. "
No. Original sin. All parents are guilty and in need of forgiveness from both their adult children and God Himself. Forgiving your parents for their emotional abuse that caused you to rebel against them and God and giving up your anger towards them is part of the salvation or being born-again process.
Again, not saying I believe this; but do consider it as a possible Truth claim.
The religious figure I'm referring to who believes all parents corrupt their into sin in an upward unbroken chain that reaches to Eve and then Satan, obviously does not believe:
"I guess no one is to blame. I like it. We are innocent of all charges. "
No. Original sin. All parents are guilty and in need of forgiveness from both their adult children and God Himself. Forgiving your parents for their emotional abuse that caused you to rebel against them and God and giving up your anger towards them is part of the salvation or being born-again process.
Again, not saying I believe this; but do consider it as a possible Truth claim.
8.10.2011 | 2:08pm
Deacon Jim Stagg says:
@ Andrew
Having never read Francis Schaeffer (or his son), would that be "simplistic" as in "being culled" from the Gospels?
Having never read Francis Schaeffer (or his son), would that be "simplistic" as in "being culled" from the Gospels?
8.10.2011 | 2:09pm
M. Chen says:
Re: the issues of Frankie - In the best of Christian homes, what parent is perfect? Not mine, nor am I. But each of us walks into a time of responsibility. Yes, Jesus is in my heart and transformation continues. I must forgive my parents for injustices done to me, and I must repent of injustices I've done to my children. The ill effects on them and me will be nullified and rooted out because of God's grace, as I continue to seek Him. I'm counting on it. We will all be healed and restored. Praise God!
@ David Nickol - thank you for the laugh of the day!
@ David Nickol - thank you for the laugh of the day!
8.10.2011 | 2:15pm
Sarah Flashing says:
Joe - Brannon Howse (Worldview Weekend) has been spending a lot of time on the association of Rick Perry with "Dominionists." I had wondered if this coverage of Bachmann was a piggy-back on Howse's cause to undermine Perry's potential candidacy. See here http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7412 and here http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm
8.10.2011 | 2:30pm
Megan says:
During my one year in the Baptist Church, I recall watching Frances Schaeffer's film series, "How Then Shall We Live?" Though I was a baby Christian at the time, I found the series disturbing: I recognized in Schaeffer the same paranoid delusions I'd observed in my mentally ill father. Though Schaeffer wasn't the reason I left the Baptist Church--I became involved with the charismatic movement, which church doctrine opposed--he was certainly the reason I'll never go back.
I think it's a shame Schaeffer died so soon. Had he lived longer, I believe his behavior might have eventually disqualified his teachings, as it did, apparently, for his son Frank.
Building a religion's foundation for Truth and Reality on the words of a madman is like building a house on the shifting sands. Bachmann's allegiance to Schaeffer would be sufficient to lose her my vote.
I think it's a shame Schaeffer died so soon. Had he lived longer, I believe his behavior might have eventually disqualified his teachings, as it did, apparently, for his son Frank.
Building a religion's foundation for Truth and Reality on the words of a madman is like building a house on the shifting sands. Bachmann's allegiance to Schaeffer would be sufficient to lose her my vote.
8.10.2011 | 2:31pm
Jon Rowe says:
I don't think there's any question that RJ Rushdoony and his followers believe in something that aptly could be termed "dominionism." And I also understand that Rushdoony is a fringe figure who doesn't well represent a meat and potatoes evangelical religious conservative.
But contra Joe I think there is a dominionist streak among meat and potatoes non Rushdoony evangelicals. A lot of Texas Republicans, for instance, would qualify. See for instance the following article for a typical less extreme than Rushdoony example of a Texas Republican Christian dominionist.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71102
But contra Joe I think there is a dominionist streak among meat and potatoes non Rushdoony evangelicals. A lot of Texas Republicans, for instance, would qualify. See for instance the following article for a typical less extreme than Rushdoony example of a Texas Republican Christian dominionist.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71102
8.10.2011 | 2:40pm
Joe Carter says:
@Jon Rowe ***I don't think there's any question that RJ Rushdoony and his followers believe in something that aptly could be termed "dominionism."***
There's already two perfectly good terms to describe Rushdoony and his ilk: Reconstructionism and theonomy
Those are the terms that they use by both theocrats and scholars who study them. When someone uses the term "dominionist" its a clear sign that you are dealing with someone whose only information about the movement is derived from Wikipedia.
There's already two perfectly good terms to describe Rushdoony and his ilk: Reconstructionism and theonomy
Those are the terms that they use by both theocrats and scholars who study them. When someone uses the term "dominionist" its a clear sign that you are dealing with someone whose only information about the movement is derived from Wikipedia.
8.10.2011 | 2:44pm
Keith Pavlischek says:
"His influence shaped hundreds of evangelical leaders, including Chuck Colson, Jack Kemp, Ron Sider, Mark Noll—and Michele Bachmann." Ah, Joe, you've blown their cover. You do know, of course, that they are all really crypto-"dominionists" and are really moles for the likes of R.J. Rushdoony. Don't you?
8.10.2011 | 3:04pm
Albert says:
Jim, spot on. Between the fear-mongering of articles like this New Yorker piece and the effusive editorials like Nick Kristof's latest praising his kind of evangelicals, I'm a bit tired of the sticks and carrots of mainstream media.
8.10.2011 | 3:18pm
Ryan says:
Well, at least Schaeffer never wrote about a subject that he wasn’t thoroughly versed in. We know for instance that he always took his interlocutor’s thoughts in context and never failed to footnote his assertions about their ideas. So we know that one won’t see the sloppiness in Schaeffer with regard to, say, the thought of Hegel or Kierkegaard, as we do in this New Yorker piece about Schaeffer...
(e.g. see Schaeffer’s thoughts on Hegel, ‘The Francis A. Schaeffer trilogy: the three essential books in one volume’, p.14)
(e.g. see Schaeffer’s thoughts on Hegel, ‘The Francis A. Schaeffer trilogy: the three essential books in one volume’, p.14)
8.10.2011 | 3:42pm
Jack Perry says:
Megan I think it's a shame Schaeffer died so soon. Had he lived longer, I believe his behavior might have eventually disqualified his teachings, as it did, apparently, for his son Frank.
He died in his 70s (1912-1984). When would you have preferred him to die?
He died in his 70s (1912-1984). When would you have preferred him to die?
8.10.2011 | 3:44pm
Bonnie says:
The term "dominion" is used often by those in what might be called a movement to reclaim private responsibility and assert ownership rights among Christians who see the Creation mandate in terms of spreading dominion not via the state, but the family. See this article from Vision Forum, for example. I don't think it's too great a stretch to speak of this philosophy as "dominionism" and its proponents as "dominionist," in the same way that those who believe in the Great Commission are called "evangelists." This does not excuse its misrepresentation via take-over-the-world paranoia; however, many adherents do view the mandate somewhat in worldly rather than spiritual terms.
8.10.2011 | 3:48pm
pentamom says:
So, Ryan, we beef up Lizza's credibility by attacking the credibility of a minor subject of his work? I didn't realize journalistic credibility was normed like a standardized test or something. This tactic could be very useful; I'll have to remember it.
Even someone who writes about a (purportedly) sloppy writer should try to be reasonably accurate in his portrayals, don't you think?
Even someone who writes about a (purportedly) sloppy writer should try to be reasonably accurate in his portrayals, don't you think?
8.10.2011 | 3:52pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Megan, you really find Schaeffer "disturbing" and having "paranoid delusions"? I think this says more about you than about Schaeffer. I, as Joe obviously was, was deeply influence by Schaeffer, and that was 30 years ago. His influence on me and my thinking was profound, and I am profoundly grateful for it. I think his value to the Evangelical community wasn't so much the content of his writing or thinking, but in that he took the intellect and intellectual and philosophical things seriously. Up until Francis Schaeffer the conservative Protestant church was highly anti-intellectual. That can't be said anymore, although we are light years behind our Catholic brothers and sisters.
As for Frankie and his mom and dad, I thought Frankie was an absolutist and dogmatic when he was a right winger. His personality hasn't changed as he moved leftward. I think he's the same idiot he was then, only now he seems to be filled with bitter self-righteousness. There are many famously successful parents in any field, religious or not, who may not be the best parents. Often that's a price of their success and personality. Ronald Reagan had problems with his kids. There are consequences to neglect, and I could see in the lifestyle that the Schaeffer's lived that Frankie may have felt and indeed been neglected. But it doesn't excuse his being a classless lout who craves attention.
As for Frankie and his mom and dad, I thought Frankie was an absolutist and dogmatic when he was a right winger. His personality hasn't changed as he moved leftward. I think he's the same idiot he was then, only now he seems to be filled with bitter self-righteousness. There are many famously successful parents in any field, religious or not, who may not be the best parents. Often that's a price of their success and personality. Ronald Reagan had problems with his kids. There are consequences to neglect, and I could see in the lifestyle that the Schaeffer's lived that Frankie may have felt and indeed been neglected. But it doesn't excuse his being a classless lout who craves attention.
8.10.2011 | 3:54pm
Bonnie says:
Oops--here's the link to the Vision Forum article: http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/gods_hand_in_history/the_reformed_christian_legacy.aspx
There are also pieces like this-- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/05/taking-dominion/
There are also pieces like this-- http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/08/05/taking-dominion/
8.10.2011 | 4:14pm
Tony says:
The days of fact checking have long been replaced by shock journalism. Those holding a camera and confronting rioters on the streets of London will succeed where others who go the traditional route won't. It's a sign of our quick fix culture sadly. Tony
8.10.2011 | 4:14pm
Joel says:
John Rowe,
The only problem with your theory is that Frank's own siblings as well as other relatives have discounted much of what he's claimed. While it's well-known that Francis Schaeffer had an anger problem, Frank goes overboard and exaggerates it. You can look to Udo Middlemann, Os Guiness, and many others who grew up around Frank and/or are related to him (by marriage). Fact is, Frank has lied quite a bit - what's actually caused his rebellion is that he's just a bad person.
The only problem with your theory is that Frank's own siblings as well as other relatives have discounted much of what he's claimed. While it's well-known that Francis Schaeffer had an anger problem, Frank goes overboard and exaggerates it. You can look to Udo Middlemann, Os Guiness, and many others who grew up around Frank and/or are related to him (by marriage). Fact is, Frank has lied quite a bit - what's actually caused his rebellion is that he's just a bad person.
8.10.2011 | 4:21pm
pentamom says:
"When someone uses the term "dominionist" its a clear sign that you are dealing with someone whose only information about the movement is derived from Wikipedia. "
Or Dave Hunt, who is only read by liberals when they want to trash one of his subjects.
Or Dave Hunt, who is only read by liberals when they want to trash one of his subjects.
8.10.2011 | 4:35pm
Ryan says:
@pentamom— My intention was not to ‘beef up Lizza’s credibility—if she made errors, then she is in error. My point is simply that I find it amusing to be so meticulous with a commentator on Schaeffer rather than with what Schaeffer himself said. Philosophy is something Schaeffer talked of often; and if anyone has actually studied philosophy, I think they’d find his thoughts quite perplexing—often little more than mere caricature.
Luckily, I think we can still be thankful for what Schaeffer was, an intentional and passionate push to get evangelical thought out of the dark ages (sentimental pietism & sheltered common-sense realistism). But thankfully those who came after him did so with greater care and nuance in getting to the truth of the subjects in which they tackled.
Schaeffer was no ‘dominionist’, just as Hegel was not the first person to “remove the straight line of [all] previous thought”.
Luckily, I think we can still be thankful for what Schaeffer was, an intentional and passionate push to get evangelical thought out of the dark ages (sentimental pietism & sheltered common-sense realistism). But thankfully those who came after him did so with greater care and nuance in getting to the truth of the subjects in which they tackled.
Schaeffer was no ‘dominionist’, just as Hegel was not the first person to “remove the straight line of [all] previous thought”.
8.10.2011 | 5:12pm
pentamom says:
"My point is simply that I find it amusing to be so meticulous with a commentator on Schaeffer rather than with what Schaeffer himself said. "
Why is it "amusing" to review the content of an article written this week without going back and reviewing some works it mentioned that were written 30 years ago?
There is nothing "amusing" or "ironic" or anything else condescendingly cute about reviewing an author's treatment of another author without going all the way back into re-analyzing the credibility author being reviewed. To the extent the article's about Schaeffer at all, it's about what Schaeffer wrote, not really a about whether what he wrote is sound or not. (Which is another thing that makes it sloppy, really -- we aren't told why something Schaeffer said is good or bad, it's just put out there for OMG how can anyone believe this shock value.)
And that's all apart from the fact that the article wasn't about Schaeffer, it was about Bachmann.
And speaking of meticulous, Ryan Lizza isn't a "she."
Why is it "amusing" to review the content of an article written this week without going back and reviewing some works it mentioned that were written 30 years ago?
There is nothing "amusing" or "ironic" or anything else condescendingly cute about reviewing an author's treatment of another author without going all the way back into re-analyzing the credibility author being reviewed. To the extent the article's about Schaeffer at all, it's about what Schaeffer wrote, not really a about whether what he wrote is sound or not. (Which is another thing that makes it sloppy, really -- we aren't told why something Schaeffer said is good or bad, it's just put out there for OMG how can anyone believe this shock value.)
And that's all apart from the fact that the article wasn't about Schaeffer, it was about Bachmann.
And speaking of meticulous, Ryan Lizza isn't a "she."
8.10.2011 | 5:54pm
Charlie Collier says:
"First, there is no 'school of thought' known as 'dominionism.' The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation."
It's sad to see Joe Carter lecturing The New Yorker on how to practice solid journalism while practicing a substandard version himself. The above claims about "dominionism" and "dominion theology" are simply false, and a quick look through a reputable library's online catalog would have made that plain.
"Dominion theology" is actually a subject heading recognized by the Library of Congress with at least 32 books listing it.
"Dominionism" or "dominion theology" has been used by numerous other academics, including conservative evangelicals, some of whom advocate for a specific form of theology under the very label Carter claims is a useless concoction from an 80s dissertation. Note the following books and publishers: Bruce Barron, "Heaven on Earth?: The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology," Zondervan, 1992; H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, "Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse?," Multnomah, 1998; and Peter C. Wagner, "Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World," Chosen (a division of Baker), 2008.
Wagner's table of contents summarizes chapter 3, "A New Paradigm: Dominion Theology," as follows:
"Dominion theology provides the biblical paradigm for understanding how the Church must involve itself in the cultural mandate as well as the evangelistic mandate. God's will is not only for us to save souls, but also, more broadly, to transform society. 'Dominion' starts in Genesis 1:26, and the theme is carried through the Bible. Jesus became the second Adam and regained the dominion over creation that the first Adam lost. Dominion is also called Kingdom theology: 'Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' God's will being accomplished on earth as it is in heaven depends on His people becoming empowered by the Holy Spirit and moving into action."
It's sad to see Joe Carter lecturing The New Yorker on how to practice solid journalism while practicing a substandard version himself. The above claims about "dominionism" and "dominion theology" are simply false, and a quick look through a reputable library's online catalog would have made that plain.
"Dominion theology" is actually a subject heading recognized by the Library of Congress with at least 32 books listing it.
"Dominionism" or "dominion theology" has been used by numerous other academics, including conservative evangelicals, some of whom advocate for a specific form of theology under the very label Carter claims is a useless concoction from an 80s dissertation. Note the following books and publishers: Bruce Barron, "Heaven on Earth?: The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology," Zondervan, 1992; H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, "Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse?," Multnomah, 1998; and Peter C. Wagner, "Dominion! How Kingdom Action Can Change the World," Chosen (a division of Baker), 2008.
Wagner's table of contents summarizes chapter 3, "A New Paradigm: Dominion Theology," as follows:
"Dominion theology provides the biblical paradigm for understanding how the Church must involve itself in the cultural mandate as well as the evangelistic mandate. God's will is not only for us to save souls, but also, more broadly, to transform society. 'Dominion' starts in Genesis 1:26, and the theme is carried through the Bible. Jesus became the second Adam and regained the dominion over creation that the first Adam lost. Dominion is also called Kingdom theology: 'Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' God's will being accomplished on earth as it is in heaven depends on His people becoming empowered by the Holy Spirit and moving into action."
8.10.2011 | 6:21pm
Joe Carter says:
@Charlie Collier ***Dominion theology" is actually a subject heading recognized by the Library of Congress with at least 32 books listing it.***
First of all, Charlie, “dominion theology” is not the same as “dominionism.” The fact that you had to swap terms to make your point should have been a sign that you were heading down the wrong path.
Second, “dominionism” has a very specific definition, since it was coined by Diamond. The definition, as I said, is: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
Third, dominion theology is a term for a particular form of theology that is generally associated with the Vineyard movement and John Wimber. It’s basic position is that "As believers, we are to take power over Satan and demons, we are to exercise dominion over them." Does that sound like the same “dominionism that Lizza is talking about?
By the way, did you find any references to “dominionism” that preceded Diamond’s coining of the word? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
First of all, Charlie, “dominion theology” is not the same as “dominionism.” The fact that you had to swap terms to make your point should have been a sign that you were heading down the wrong path.
Second, “dominionism” has a very specific definition, since it was coined by Diamond. The definition, as I said, is: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”
Third, dominion theology is a term for a particular form of theology that is generally associated with the Vineyard movement and John Wimber. It’s basic position is that "As believers, we are to take power over Satan and demons, we are to exercise dominion over them." Does that sound like the same “dominionism that Lizza is talking about?
By the way, did you find any references to “dominionism” that preceded Diamond’s coining of the word? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
8.10.2011 | 6:22pm
Kyle Roberts says:
Ryan wrote: "Well, at least Schaeffer never wrote about a subject that he wasn’t thoroughly versed in. We know for instance that he always took his interlocutor’s thoughts in context and never failed to footnote his assertions about their ideas. So we know that one won’t see the sloppiness in Schaeffer with regard to, say, the thought of Hegel or Kierkegaard, as we do in this New Yorker piece about Schaeffer..."
Exactly. I recently wrote an article on Schaeffer's use of Kierkegaard (or rather, misuse of Kierkegaard). In his writings, he pretty much laid the blame for the demise of Western civilization at the foot of Kierkegaard (and those 'Kierkegaardians'--who are they, again?). Strikingly, he did it without ever giving any indication that he had actually read anything by Kierkegaard (no quotations, no footnotes, only a passing mention of a one or two of his texts). Several theologians who know Schaeffer better than I do have posited that he got a good bit of his analysis of some of these major figures secondhand through conversations with folks passing through L'Abri. No one is perfect, of course, and S was majorly influential on evangelicalism in some positive ways, but if I were going to make "fact checking" my shtick I probably wouldn't admit that Schaeffer is my "intellectual hero."
Exactly. I recently wrote an article on Schaeffer's use of Kierkegaard (or rather, misuse of Kierkegaard). In his writings, he pretty much laid the blame for the demise of Western civilization at the foot of Kierkegaard (and those 'Kierkegaardians'--who are they, again?). Strikingly, he did it without ever giving any indication that he had actually read anything by Kierkegaard (no quotations, no footnotes, only a passing mention of a one or two of his texts). Several theologians who know Schaeffer better than I do have posited that he got a good bit of his analysis of some of these major figures secondhand through conversations with folks passing through L'Abri. No one is perfect, of course, and S was majorly influential on evangelicalism in some positive ways, but if I were going to make "fact checking" my shtick I probably wouldn't admit that Schaeffer is my "intellectual hero."
8.10.2011 | 6:37pm
Joe Carter says:
@Charlie Collier ***Joe, Lizza is making himself available to answers questions about his article today at 3pm.***
Thanks for pointing that out. I asked a question but it didn't get used. Someone asked him about the grasshopper part:
****
"QUESTION FROM MATT: What were you trying to prove by noting Bachmann’s confusion of “locust” and grasshoppers”?
RYAN LIZZA: That was a minor inaccuracy in her retelling of a long story that was filled with errors. The big problem with that story was that she recited a series of events that happened in Wisconsin and the Dakota Territory, while leading her audience to believe they all happened in Iowa. My guess is that she turned the word “grasshoppers” into “locusts” because she was speaking in front of a church audience and wanted to give the story a more biblical flourish. But that’s just a guess.
******
So I was wrong. Lizza doesn't know that locusts are grasshoppers (and apparently neither does anyone else at the New Yorker). In fact, he was so certain that she was wrong that he never bothered to check to see if maybe—just maybe—she knew what she was saying. That guy is beyond incompetent.
Thanks for pointing that out. I asked a question but it didn't get used. Someone asked him about the grasshopper part:
****
"QUESTION FROM MATT: What were you trying to prove by noting Bachmann’s confusion of “locust” and grasshoppers”?
RYAN LIZZA: That was a minor inaccuracy in her retelling of a long story that was filled with errors. The big problem with that story was that she recited a series of events that happened in Wisconsin and the Dakota Territory, while leading her audience to believe they all happened in Iowa. My guess is that she turned the word “grasshoppers” into “locusts” because she was speaking in front of a church audience and wanted to give the story a more biblical flourish. But that’s just a guess.
******
So I was wrong. Lizza doesn't know that locusts are grasshoppers (and apparently neither does anyone else at the New Yorker). In fact, he was so certain that she was wrong that he never bothered to check to see if maybe—just maybe—she knew what she was saying. That guy is beyond incompetent.
8.10.2011 | 7:14pm
Derek says:
I didn’t know that Francis Schaeffer said the following (as quoted in the NY article):
“The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”
What does he mean by “early church”? If you were living in the time of the Apostles, the argument for “biblical authority” would have been impossible to make. This follows chronologically and logically. The biblical canon was not ratified until 375 @ the Council of Carthage. So how can he say that “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority”? Historically, this is just plain false.
In the first chapter of “Jesus Through the Centuries,” the world renown Yale historian (then-Lutheran) Jaroslav Pelikan writes,
“Christian tradition had precedence, chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a tradition of the church before there was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the New Testament. By the time the materials of the oral tradition found their way into written form, they had passed through the life and experience of the church, which laid claim to the presence of the Holy Spirit of God.”
What is more, nowhere in the writings of the Apostles did they explicitly or implicitly teach that their own epistles themselves alone are the only authority and foundation for Christian belief and practice. For, why would they? If they did, then everything that they taught orally to the early Christians would have been undermined.
Derek
“The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”
What does he mean by “early church”? If you were living in the time of the Apostles, the argument for “biblical authority” would have been impossible to make. This follows chronologically and logically. The biblical canon was not ratified until 375 @ the Council of Carthage. So how can he say that “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority”? Historically, this is just plain false.
In the first chapter of “Jesus Through the Centuries,” the world renown Yale historian (then-Lutheran) Jaroslav Pelikan writes,
“Christian tradition had precedence, chronologically and even logically, over Christian Scripture; for there was a tradition of the church before there was ever a New Testament, or any individual book of the New Testament. By the time the materials of the oral tradition found their way into written form, they had passed through the life and experience of the church, which laid claim to the presence of the Holy Spirit of God.”
What is more, nowhere in the writings of the Apostles did they explicitly or implicitly teach that their own epistles themselves alone are the only authority and foundation for Christian belief and practice. For, why would they? If they did, then everything that they taught orally to the early Christians would have been undermined.
Derek
8.10.2011 | 7:59pm
Peter Leavitt says:
Jon Rowe: "But contra Joe I think there is a dominionist streak among meat and potatoes non Rushdoony evangelicals."
I should suggest that you read Ross Douthat's First Things August/ September 2006 article, *Theocracy! Theocracy! Theocracy!* in which he makes clear that leftists are rather paranoid about the threat of Rushdoonian Theonomy. Truth to be told the very few Christians who advocate Theonomy are on the margins; not one of them has any serious influence in America.
I understand that sometimes paranoids have real enemies, as we Bostonian Sox fans are aware of the evil Yankees.
I should suggest that you read Ross Douthat's First Things August/ September 2006 article, *Theocracy! Theocracy! Theocracy!* in which he makes clear that leftists are rather paranoid about the threat of Rushdoonian Theonomy. Truth to be told the very few Christians who advocate Theonomy are on the margins; not one of them has any serious influence in America.
I understand that sometimes paranoids have real enemies, as we Bostonian Sox fans are aware of the evil Yankees.
8.10.2011 | 10:13pm
Bonnie says:
Joe,
I don't think we can expect the average person to distinguish between "dominion mandate" and "dominionism," or not to conflate dominion theology, the dominion mandate, and dominionism. Nor can we reasonably expect anyone not to use such an obscure term any way they like, especially since dominion theology and its influence are broader than you suggest, and its history more complex.
I don't think we can expect the average person to distinguish between "dominion mandate" and "dominionism," or not to conflate dominion theology, the dominion mandate, and dominionism. Nor can we reasonably expect anyone not to use such an obscure term any way they like, especially since dominion theology and its influence are broader than you suggest, and its history more complex.
8.10.2011 | 10:22pm
Joe Carter says:
@Bonnie ***I don't think we can expect the average person to distinguish between "dominion mandate" and "dominionism," or not to conflate dominion theology, the dominion mandate, and dominionism. ***
I completely agree. That's why I think it's imperative for journalists like Lizza to get his facts straight before he does irreparable damage to people's reputations. It's not just that he wrote an article—he's been on NPR and other media outlets spewing the same nonsense.
Too often journalists think they get a pass when it comes to matters of theology. They wouldn't dream of writing about economics or law and using such equivocal language. Yet they don't think twice about using religious language that has multiple meanings.
I completely agree. That's why I think it's imperative for journalists like Lizza to get his facts straight before he does irreparable damage to people's reputations. It's not just that he wrote an article—he's been on NPR and other media outlets spewing the same nonsense.
Too often journalists think they get a pass when it comes to matters of theology. They wouldn't dream of writing about economics or law and using such equivocal language. Yet they don't think twice about using religious language that has multiple meanings.
8.11.2011 | 12:03am
Francis J. Beckwith says:
Joe:
Thanks for this wonderful essay.
However, Robert P. George's skewering of Frank Schaeffer comes to mind as the Platonic ideal: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-p-george-skewers-frank-schaeffer.html
Thanks for this wonderful essay.
However, Robert P. George's skewering of Frank Schaeffer comes to mind as the Platonic ideal: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-p-george-skewers-frank-schaeffer.html
8.11.2011 | 9:36am
Nickp says:
Lizza doesn't know that locusts are grasshoppers (and apparently neither does anyone else at the New Yorker). In fact, he was so certain that she was wrong that he never bothered to check to see if maybe—just maybe—she knew what she was saying. That guy is beyond incompetent.
It's even worse than that. Locust and grasshopper aren't just synonyms. Locusts are, specifically, the swarming form of various grasshopper species. So, by using the term "locusts" for a destructive swarm, Bachmann was more correct, more precise, than if she had just said "grasshopper."
Presumably, the critters were Rocky Mountain Locusts, now extinct.
It's even worse than that. Locust and grasshopper aren't just synonyms. Locusts are, specifically, the swarming form of various grasshopper species. So, by using the term "locusts" for a destructive swarm, Bachmann was more correct, more precise, than if she had just said "grasshopper."
Presumably, the critters were Rocky Mountain Locusts, now extinct.
8.11.2011 | 9:59am
Nickp says:
Sorry about lack of quotation marks. The first paragraph in my comment above is a quote from Joe.
8.11.2011 | 11:24am
Ken Temple says:
Thanks Joe for a great article!
I love Francis Schaeffer and his books and his striving for the ideal of a balance between intellectual and Biblical answers to honest questions (apologetics) and hospitality (outreach, love, patience, meals, place of refuge, discussion).
But he is also fallible and human and he did make a mistake in the quote about "Constantine mentality"
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this - I have not read through all the comments.
But . . . one mistake that Francis Schaeffer made:
"The whole “Constantine mentality” from the fourth century up to our own day was a mistake. . . . Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day."
Just one other fact check - Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, rather he made it legal, that is, that they would no longer persecute the Christians. (Edict of Milan; 312-313 AD.) It was a later Emperor, Theodosius, around 380-382 AD who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
This is a common mistake made by lots of people. Schaeffer was very good; and his main point is still true, that Theocracy is not -Biblical; but that mistake needs to be pointed out.
So, it should have been, the "Theodosius mentality" of 380 and beyond; or maybe the extremes of the "Justinian mentality" of around 530 AD and beyond". The church and state was much more combined in the Christian Empire during those reigns, especially in Justinian's reign.
Besides that, Schaeffer's balance of evangelism, apologetics, hospitality, and seeking to influence society for moral and ethical principles was excellent, even though some people have taken it to extremes and liberals and leftists misunderstand him.
Thanks again Joe for an excellent article and correcting the leftist "spin masters"!
I love Francis Schaeffer and his books and his striving for the ideal of a balance between intellectual and Biblical answers to honest questions (apologetics) and hospitality (outreach, love, patience, meals, place of refuge, discussion).
But he is also fallible and human and he did make a mistake in the quote about "Constantine mentality"
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this - I have not read through all the comments.
But . . . one mistake that Francis Schaeffer made:
"The whole “Constantine mentality” from the fourth century up to our own day was a mistake. . . . Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day."
Just one other fact check - Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, rather he made it legal, that is, that they would no longer persecute the Christians. (Edict of Milan; 312-313 AD.) It was a later Emperor, Theodosius, around 380-382 AD who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
This is a common mistake made by lots of people. Schaeffer was very good; and his main point is still true, that Theocracy is not -Biblical; but that mistake needs to be pointed out.
So, it should have been, the "Theodosius mentality" of 380 and beyond; or maybe the extremes of the "Justinian mentality" of around 530 AD and beyond". The church and state was much more combined in the Christian Empire during those reigns, especially in Justinian's reign.
Besides that, Schaeffer's balance of evangelism, apologetics, hospitality, and seeking to influence society for moral and ethical principles was excellent, even though some people have taken it to extremes and liberals and leftists misunderstand him.
Thanks again Joe for an excellent article and correcting the leftist "spin masters"!
8.11.2011 | 12:06pm
Ken Temple says:
"The whole “Constantine mentality” from the fourth century up to our own day was a mistake. . . . Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day. "
I decided to actually look this up in Schaeffer's book, and it turns out that he does mention Theodosius within the ". . . " ellipsis;
on page 485 of Volume 5 of The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview of the West. (A Christian Manifesto is the last book in that volume.)
"The whole "Constantine mentality" from the fourth century on up to our day was a mistake. Constantine, as the Roman Emperor, in 313 ended the persecution of Christians. Unfortunately, the support he gave to the church led by 381 to the enforcing of Christianity, by Theodosius I, as the official state religion. Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day."
So, I was wrong in thinking Schaeffer thought Constantine made Christianity the official state religion, however I still think Schaeffer was implying that Constantine was totally wrong in what he calls the "Constantine mentality" - for implying that his "support" was wrong - since that would have implications for his calling of the Niceane Council for the churches to settle their disputes on the Arian heresy, and also the problem of the next 60 years or so with the Arians taking over the churches by political power (violence) and exiling Athanasius (5 times), for example.
This is sort of off topic, but the implications of the complaints of leftist seclarists and media types (like the way they attack Michelle Bauchman and Sara Palin and other conservatives); and the history of Christianity in those centuries before Islam invaded seems to be a relevant topic for today's world.
More work needs to be done to bring the details of this period out for laypeople and the public and the implications for sound doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ - in the councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381); Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451 AD). Included in that would be Augustine's just war theory and the Donatists issue and Justinian's laws and the harshness dealt to the Monophysites in Egypt and Syria and the Nestorians in Mesopotamia and the results of the Islamic invasions upon the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.
The Arab Islamic invasions (unjust Jihad aggressive wars; Surah 9:29; 8:39) were able to conquer more easily partially because the people were tired of the tyranny and enforcements of the Justinian era on their beliefs.
If the west is not careful, the disagreements and divisions between western secular leftists and Christian morality advocates ( I am included, I agree with the political positions of Schaeffer and Bauchman, for example); can be (and already is being) used by Islam to seek to conquer the west.
I decided to actually look this up in Schaeffer's book, and it turns out that he does mention Theodosius within the ". . . " ellipsis;
on page 485 of Volume 5 of The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview of the West. (A Christian Manifesto is the last book in that volume.)
"The whole "Constantine mentality" from the fourth century on up to our day was a mistake. Constantine, as the Roman Emperor, in 313 ended the persecution of Christians. Unfortunately, the support he gave to the church led by 381 to the enforcing of Christianity, by Theodosius I, as the official state religion. Making Christianity the official state religion opened the way for confusion up till our own day."
So, I was wrong in thinking Schaeffer thought Constantine made Christianity the official state religion, however I still think Schaeffer was implying that Constantine was totally wrong in what he calls the "Constantine mentality" - for implying that his "support" was wrong - since that would have implications for his calling of the Niceane Council for the churches to settle their disputes on the Arian heresy, and also the problem of the next 60 years or so with the Arians taking over the churches by political power (violence) and exiling Athanasius (5 times), for example.
This is sort of off topic, but the implications of the complaints of leftist seclarists and media types (like the way they attack Michelle Bauchman and Sara Palin and other conservatives); and the history of Christianity in those centuries before Islam invaded seems to be a relevant topic for today's world.
More work needs to be done to bring the details of this period out for laypeople and the public and the implications for sound doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ - in the councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381); Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451 AD). Included in that would be Augustine's just war theory and the Donatists issue and Justinian's laws and the harshness dealt to the Monophysites in Egypt and Syria and the Nestorians in Mesopotamia and the results of the Islamic invasions upon the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire.
The Arab Islamic invasions (unjust Jihad aggressive wars; Surah 9:29; 8:39) were able to conquer more easily partially because the people were tired of the tyranny and enforcements of the Justinian era on their beliefs.
If the west is not careful, the disagreements and divisions between western secular leftists and Christian morality advocates ( I am included, I agree with the political positions of Schaeffer and Bauchman, for example); can be (and already is being) used by Islam to seek to conquer the west.
8.11.2011 | 12:32pm
Bonnie says:
Joe, I agree that Lizza's journalism is reprehensible, as is the entire effort to paint Christian conservative political candidates as dominionist theonomists. However, do we know that Sara Diamond is the sole originator/propagator/trademark owner of the term "dominionism"? The term *is* used outside of liberal blogs and websites; how accurately, I can't say. But I'm not sure there's a body of evidence weighty enough to establish just what an accurate definition is, and it doesn't seem too large a stretch for the term "dominionist" to occur to even an honest Christian in reference to the views of certain proponents of dominion theology who take Genesis 1:28 a little too far.
In other words, it's not merely the lame, sick, and lazy who are conflating "dominion theology" with "dominionism," and how can a plebian help it? The problem, unfortunately, goes both ways: bad journalism *and* difficultly in fact-checking -- I am not fully convinced by the facts you yourself present on this one point. But I do agree that Lizza, Frank Schaeffer, et al grossly misrepresent Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, Chuck Colson, and certain political candidates.
In other words, it's not merely the lame, sick, and lazy who are conflating "dominion theology" with "dominionism," and how can a plebian help it? The problem, unfortunately, goes both ways: bad journalism *and* difficultly in fact-checking -- I am not fully convinced by the facts you yourself present on this one point. But I do agree that Lizza, Frank Schaeffer, et al grossly misrepresent Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, Chuck Colson, and certain political candidates.
8.11.2011 | 12:52pm
Udo Middelmann says:
In Schaeffer's writing, specifically in "A Christian Manifesto" (Vol 5, The Complete Works, pages 483 – 489), one finds no basis for the suggestion made on a number of occasions, including both the New Yorker Article or the similar NPR conversation, that Schaeffer called for armed resistance to Hitler in times past or to bring down the US government after Roe vs. Wade.
Schaeffer speaks of favorably of the defiance against Hitler’s false and counterfeit state, where it took the form of hiding Jews (483). But, interestingly, Schaeffer's call for any civil disobedience also frightens the realist about human nature, “because there are so many kooky people around” (488). He writes: “People are always irresponsible in a fallen world. But we live in a special time of irresponsible people, and such people will in their unbalanced way tend to do the very opposite from considering the appropriate means at the appropriate time and place. Anarchy is never appropriate.”
On page 489 Schaeffer continues a quote with a reference to the American Declaration of Independence: “Whenever civil government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it and institute new government.” He was always very much aware of the burden of unintended consequences and therefore spoke both for some, and tried to restrain other actions. He was well aware of the temptation to “kooky people” to take the law into their own hands. He warned against anarchy, and is therefore not responsible for what various abortion killers and others have adopted as their form of protest.
Likewise I remember vividly how much Schaeffer avoided becoming a front man or a driver of the religious right. While advocating political participation and moral justification, he was always the restrainer of the wild men out there. He flew to Mr. Falwell to restrain him, not to put fuel into his fire. The same goes for Pat Robinson, Jim Kennedy or the crowd now gathered in Colorado Springs. He did not incite them to what they choose to do. He strongly opposed vigilantism and saw no necessary benefit from a government made up of Christians. Instead he taught and worked for lawful opposition, a changing of people’s minds and the renewal of government by legitimate means.
The practical problem is that such “kooky people” do not in fact wish to take the law into their own hands, though that is what they claim. For, if they did wish that, they would follow the law and use it: before using their guns they would require two witnesses, a psychiatric examination of the trespasser to establish the degree of accountability, allow for a cooling-off period before reacting (modeled on the purpose of the cities of refuge in the Old Testament and the preparation of the prosecution case in our procedural laws), appoint a defense attorney and consider that the punishment must fit the crime, as well as reckon with a possible appeal process to a higher court.
No, the “kooky people” Schaeffer had in mind want to make their own law and avoid accountability to reality and a wider world; they are in fact the anarchists he spoke against.
Schaeffer speaks of favorably of the defiance against Hitler’s false and counterfeit state, where it took the form of hiding Jews (483). But, interestingly, Schaeffer's call for any civil disobedience also frightens the realist about human nature, “because there are so many kooky people around” (488). He writes: “People are always irresponsible in a fallen world. But we live in a special time of irresponsible people, and such people will in their unbalanced way tend to do the very opposite from considering the appropriate means at the appropriate time and place. Anarchy is never appropriate.”
On page 489 Schaeffer continues a quote with a reference to the American Declaration of Independence: “Whenever civil government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it and institute new government.” He was always very much aware of the burden of unintended consequences and therefore spoke both for some, and tried to restrain other actions. He was well aware of the temptation to “kooky people” to take the law into their own hands. He warned against anarchy, and is therefore not responsible for what various abortion killers and others have adopted as their form of protest.
Likewise I remember vividly how much Schaeffer avoided becoming a front man or a driver of the religious right. While advocating political participation and moral justification, he was always the restrainer of the wild men out there. He flew to Mr. Falwell to restrain him, not to put fuel into his fire. The same goes for Pat Robinson, Jim Kennedy or the crowd now gathered in Colorado Springs. He did not incite them to what they choose to do. He strongly opposed vigilantism and saw no necessary benefit from a government made up of Christians. Instead he taught and worked for lawful opposition, a changing of people’s minds and the renewal of government by legitimate means.
The practical problem is that such “kooky people” do not in fact wish to take the law into their own hands, though that is what they claim. For, if they did wish that, they would follow the law and use it: before using their guns they would require two witnesses, a psychiatric examination of the trespasser to establish the degree of accountability, allow for a cooling-off period before reacting (modeled on the purpose of the cities of refuge in the Old Testament and the preparation of the prosecution case in our procedural laws), appoint a defense attorney and consider that the punishment must fit the crime, as well as reckon with a possible appeal process to a higher court.
No, the “kooky people” Schaeffer had in mind want to make their own law and avoid accountability to reality and a wider world; they are in fact the anarchists he spoke against.
8.11.2011 | 2:33pm
David Alexander says:
I wish something more was said in the article about why Frank Schaeffer's testimony on this is not creditable because many people who read the article are not going to know why it is and will just be left with your word for it (and the possibility of checking themselves) and the fact that some one as close as his son said it. But nevertheless, the article was great. I love the tac you take in it.
8.11.2011 | 2:44pm
John Stoos says:
I am also one who was deeply impacted by the work of Dr. Schaeffer. I spent twenty plus years working in the political realm and now Pastor a Church where we are showing that 'old' How Should We Then Live? film series this summer.
I am truly amazed at how relevant it still is for today: In fact, this evening we are viewing the Revolutionary Age during the week of British riots.
In the Lamb,
John
I am truly amazed at how relevant it still is for today: In fact, this evening we are viewing the Revolutionary Age during the week of British riots.
In the Lamb,
John
8.11.2011 | 4:00pm
lamorpa says:
It was certainly appropriate for Lizza to make a reference to Francis Schaeffer's statement, "instructed his followers and students at L’Abri that the Bible was not just a book but “the total truth.” ", with "the total truth" in quotes. As you stated, Schaeffer's original writing was:
Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Christianity, biblical Christianity, is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.
Of course it is correct to make a quoted (as in literal) reference to what Schaeffer thought was his truth. He thought Christianity had an exclusive handle on truth, to the point of capitalizing it. Schaeffer was wrong. No one credo holds the perfect, absolute truth (that, by the way he is saying it, is the only one, or is more correct, than other faiths' ideas of truth). Schaeffer's ideas are condescending and quite frankly ignorant and/or stupid. How is this not obvious?
Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Christianity, biblical Christianity, is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.
Of course it is correct to make a quoted (as in literal) reference to what Schaeffer thought was his truth. He thought Christianity had an exclusive handle on truth, to the point of capitalizing it. Schaeffer was wrong. No one credo holds the perfect, absolute truth (that, by the way he is saying it, is the only one, or is more correct, than other faiths' ideas of truth). Schaeffer's ideas are condescending and quite frankly ignorant and/or stupid. How is this not obvious?
8.11.2011 | 4:31pm
Matt says:
Joe, I'm the Matt who got my question asked by Lizza (about grasshoppers and locusts). I got it from your article thank you very much. I also asked several other pointed questions based on your facts but those were ignored.
I'd love for you to dialogue with Lizza on twitter with some of what you've written here. He's pretty active there @ryanlizza
I'd love for you to dialogue with Lizza on twitter with some of what you've written here. He's pretty active there @ryanlizza
8.11.2011 | 5:26pm
Bob G says:
The liberal media will do their best to trash any Republican aspirant to the presidency. You wonder that they feel no obligation to hint there may be another view or opinion of the person, but fortunately the vitriol will mostly confine the audience to the hard-core left.
8.11.2011 | 11:08pm
Dr. James Willingham says:
I can remember when I discovered Francis Schaeffer; it was in seminary, and his writings were captivating to one whose interest had turned to the intellectualism of the Bible. At the time I was working out the implications of an idea that had absorbed me since the days in which I was working my Master's in American Social and Intellectual History, namely, that since the Bible was inspired by Omniscience, it ought to reflect a wisdom commensurate with that fact. My thesis for that degree had led to my writing papers on various truths of the biblical faith and their application in church history in my subsequent course work. Schaeffer provided much encouragement to explore and think, to develop new realms of thought with reference to the nature and effect of the Truths of the Faith.
Later, I would move somewhat beyond Schaeffer, but I always felt that I owed him a debt of appreciation for making the effort to strike out in new ventures of thinking as it involved the teachings of revelation. What I think I discovered is how the truths are so constructed as to make a person balanced, flexible, creative, enduring, and magnetic. In the period of the early to mid-seventies I even devised a new nomenclature for the phonomena of ideas involved and how they worked. Unfortunately, I was doing this in a school that was so-called liberal at the time, and, while the faculty members thought it was of interest, it did not fit their agenda. Later, when the school became more conservative, their lack of interest in things intellectual was even more disheartening. It is remarkable that Schaeffer had to create L'Abri in order to have a way to express andimplement his ideas. The present educational system is designed to dumb down students and destroy creativity.
Later, I would move somewhat beyond Schaeffer, but I always felt that I owed him a debt of appreciation for making the effort to strike out in new ventures of thinking as it involved the teachings of revelation. What I think I discovered is how the truths are so constructed as to make a person balanced, flexible, creative, enduring, and magnetic. In the period of the early to mid-seventies I even devised a new nomenclature for the phonomena of ideas involved and how they worked. Unfortunately, I was doing this in a school that was so-called liberal at the time, and, while the faculty members thought it was of interest, it did not fit their agenda. Later, when the school became more conservative, their lack of interest in things intellectual was even more disheartening. It is remarkable that Schaeffer had to create L'Abri in order to have a way to express andimplement his ideas. The present educational system is designed to dumb down students and destroy creativity.
8.12.2011 | 1:01pm
Carson Bennett says:
Thanks Mr. Carter for taking the time to make these inaccuracies part of the public record.
For those interested, Lizza recorded almost an hour discussion on Bachman and his article on bloggingheads TV here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38034 .
In the discussion Schaeffer is characterized as "the hippie Christian philosopher." Lizza is pretty happy with the attention his article has received. In an era when mainstream media are fighting for survival, the merit of an article is measured in clicks, not fact checks. Unfortunately, the more extreme or outrageous a a claim is, the more clicks it drives.
It is encouraging in a back-handed way that although Bachman is currently a candidate for President of one of the most influential countries in the world while Schaeffer was a book writer who worked with a retreat in the mountains of Switzerland and passed away over a quarter century ago, he is the one who has attracted the more substantive interest. It is, ironically, a tribute to the impact of his insights and message that it still attracts serious discussion in mainstream secular media. It is something to be thankful for.
For those interested, Lizza recorded almost an hour discussion on Bachman and his article on bloggingheads TV here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38034 .
In the discussion Schaeffer is characterized as "the hippie Christian philosopher." Lizza is pretty happy with the attention his article has received. In an era when mainstream media are fighting for survival, the merit of an article is measured in clicks, not fact checks. Unfortunately, the more extreme or outrageous a a claim is, the more clicks it drives.
It is encouraging in a back-handed way that although Bachman is currently a candidate for President of one of the most influential countries in the world while Schaeffer was a book writer who worked with a retreat in the mountains of Switzerland and passed away over a quarter century ago, he is the one who has attracted the more substantive interest. It is, ironically, a tribute to the impact of his insights and message that it still attracts serious discussion in mainstream secular media. It is something to be thankful for.
8.14.2011 | 3:35pm
Jeremy Pierce says:
Joe, it looks like the people who are associated with Rick Perry who are being called Dominionists are actually Dominion Theology types, judging by this hit piece.
8.14.2011 | 9:24pm
Jeremy Pierce says:
I guess my link didn't come through. Here it is without HTML:
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god
8.15.2011 | 11:52pm
nathaniel says:
Mr. Carter - It's pretty clear to me that your endearment to Francis Sheaffer has made you hypercritical of anybody who has quibbles with him. Lighten up. As someone who has watched Michele Bachmann's career for over 10 years at close range, I can tell you that she's a chronic liar and a bigot. And nin my experience, a lot of evangelicalism does have a good strong streak of dominionist thought (I'm sure I've used the wrong term here - but I don't pretend to be a theologian) in it. Frankly I've had more than enough of evangelicalism in my lifetime. It's a rigid, unloving religion - although I'm sure you'll find some quibble with this characterization too.
By the way, any theologian who shaped the thinking of convicted felon Charles Colson is less than admirable in my book. Colson lost his license to practice law, so he decided to start a "ministry" instead. It was easier than working.
By the way, any theologian who shaped the thinking of convicted felon Charles Colson is less than admirable in my book. Colson lost his license to practice law, so he decided to start a "ministry" instead. It was easier than working.
8.21.2011 | 4:49pm
Joe says:
Kyle:
You mishandle Schaeffer as much as you claim he mishandled Kierkegaard. You readily admitted there was much good in him. He simply also said his emphases also caused problems. It is amazing how many people who disagree with Schaeffer practice the same reductionism they find bothersome in him. Also, he was the first to admit he was essentially en evangelist, not a philosopher or an historian. A good and balanced treatment of him is offered here: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1935
You mishandle Schaeffer as much as you claim he mishandled Kierkegaard. You readily admitted there was much good in him. He simply also said his emphases also caused problems. It is amazing how many people who disagree with Schaeffer practice the same reductionism they find bothersome in him. Also, he was the first to admit he was essentially en evangelist, not a philosopher or an historian. A good and balanced treatment of him is offered here: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1935
8.21.2011 | 4:52pm
joe says:
"I've had more than enough of evangelicalism in my lifetime. It's a rigid, unloving religion"
And you call someone else a bigot. Quaint. As for Colson, so glad you get to judge the motives of any religious person you find not to your taste. You sound strikingly like the caricature you paint of Bachmann.
And you call someone else a bigot. Quaint. As for Colson, so glad you get to judge the motives of any religious person you find not to your taste. You sound strikingly like the caricature you paint of Bachmann.
8.21.2011 | 9:39pm
Grumpy says:
"The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites"
LOL. You probably have never heard of Seven Mountains, NAR, etc. either.....
LOL. You probably have never heard of Seven Mountains, NAR, etc. either.....
8.22.2011 | 8:15am
Josh says:
@ John Rowe
I wonder what your definition of "mental abuse" is. A lot of times simply trying to encourage someone to live like a human being instead of an animal is "mental abuse". If giving a kid a bad grade, or telling it that it has disappointed you in some way, correcting it when it sins, or even (gasp!) spanking it for appropriate reasons is mental abuse, then I would say that Frankie probably was "mentally abused". To bad it didn't work very well and he ended up being a godless animal anyway. If these kinds of things are mental abuse in your opinion, I guess you would say that I've been mentally abused. It's miraculous that I have embraced my parents faith and generally agree with them on most issues (so far, at least). Also, I would say that if that's your definition of mental abuse I would advocate the use of "mental abuse" in parenting. So if that's all the dirt you've got on Schaeffer, I'm pretty impressed with him.
I wonder what your definition of "mental abuse" is. A lot of times simply trying to encourage someone to live like a human being instead of an animal is "mental abuse". If giving a kid a bad grade, or telling it that it has disappointed you in some way, correcting it when it sins, or even (gasp!) spanking it for appropriate reasons is mental abuse, then I would say that Frankie probably was "mentally abused". To bad it didn't work very well and he ended up being a godless animal anyway. If these kinds of things are mental abuse in your opinion, I guess you would say that I've been mentally abused. It's miraculous that I have embraced my parents faith and generally agree with them on most issues (so far, at least). Also, I would say that if that's your definition of mental abuse I would advocate the use of "mental abuse" in parenting. So if that's all the dirt you've got on Schaeffer, I'm pretty impressed with him.
8.22.2011 | 12:24pm
Josh says:
@ nathaniel
I suppose that if you are an atheist, seeing a journalist do things like slander a person and claim that he believes the opposite of what he actually says would be no big deal, but for those of us who have grounds for an objective basis for morality, such acts are reprehensible and sinful and certainly at least worth pointing out and condemning.
As for Bachman being a chronic liar, I can't say that I've watched her long enough to know, but I have watched Obama long enough to know that he is a habitual compulsive liar as well, so I see no reason why we'd be any worse off with Bachman, even if she is as bad as you say.
As for your characterization of evangelicalism, I admit that there are evangelicals who fit this stereotype to some extent, just as there are Muslims who commit acts of terror and beat women to death for minor offenses. Nevertheless, the kind of christianity I practice (or at least try to) is nothing like this and I would expect that Schaeffer's is similar.
Finally, although I'm sure you won't understand this, Colson became a christian after taking part in watergate. Although you most likely can't understand having your life changed by putting your faith in God, I can vouch for the fact that the person you were before dies when you become a christian and you attain a whole new perspective on life and finally attain something to live for and a strong foundation for good moral behavior.
I suppose that if you are an atheist, seeing a journalist do things like slander a person and claim that he believes the opposite of what he actually says would be no big deal, but for those of us who have grounds for an objective basis for morality, such acts are reprehensible and sinful and certainly at least worth pointing out and condemning.
As for Bachman being a chronic liar, I can't say that I've watched her long enough to know, but I have watched Obama long enough to know that he is a habitual compulsive liar as well, so I see no reason why we'd be any worse off with Bachman, even if she is as bad as you say.
As for your characterization of evangelicalism, I admit that there are evangelicals who fit this stereotype to some extent, just as there are Muslims who commit acts of terror and beat women to death for minor offenses. Nevertheless, the kind of christianity I practice (or at least try to) is nothing like this and I would expect that Schaeffer's is similar.
Finally, although I'm sure you won't understand this, Colson became a christian after taking part in watergate. Although you most likely can't understand having your life changed by putting your faith in God, I can vouch for the fact that the person you were before dies when you become a christian and you attain a whole new perspective on life and finally attain something to live for and a strong foundation for good moral behavior.
8.29.2011 | 7:50pm
Steve Kass says:
Joe,
Did you notice that much of what you say here was repeated in today’s New York Times by Ross Douthat, with no attribution to you? What do you think of that?
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-new-yorker-and-francis-schaeffer/#preview
Did you notice that much of what you say here was repeated in today’s New York Times by Ross Douthat, with no attribution to you? What do you think of that?
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/the-new-yorker-and-francis-schaeffer/#preview
8.30.2011 | 6:10pm
Jon Rowe says:
Josh,
You obviously don't understand where I am coming from re emotional abuse. You think that you need to emotionally abuse your kid to get him in line. Emotionally intimidating your kids, taking your anger out on them often leads to a reverse psychological effect of rebellion, which is what I see in Frankie. Or it leads to an unhealthy Stockholme Syndrome like embrace of your parents' "Truth." See Fred Phelps' family and a great deal of the religious world who teach conformance thru mental abuse. If the Christian religion is true, you should be able to discover it in an emotionally uncoerced "aha" moment. And yes, you are correct that a great deal of otherwise good middle class parents emotionally abuse their kids, because they don't know any other way to keep their kids in line.
You obviously don't understand where I am coming from re emotional abuse. You think that you need to emotionally abuse your kid to get him in line. Emotionally intimidating your kids, taking your anger out on them often leads to a reverse psychological effect of rebellion, which is what I see in Frankie. Or it leads to an unhealthy Stockholme Syndrome like embrace of your parents' "Truth." See Fred Phelps' family and a great deal of the religious world who teach conformance thru mental abuse. If the Christian religion is true, you should be able to discover it in an emotionally uncoerced "aha" moment. And yes, you are correct that a great deal of otherwise good middle class parents emotionally abuse their kids, because they don't know any other way to keep their kids in line.
9.1.2011 | 7:56am
Chip Berlet says:
CORRECTION: The term "Dominionism" was NOT coined by Sara Diamond. Fred Clarkson and I developed the term “Dominionism” in a series of conversations that stretched over several years. Fred and I began to use the term "Dominionism" in speeches and interviews to describe the broader tendency inside the Christian Right as distinct from the "Dominion Theology" of Reconstructionism. See: "How We Coined the Term "'Dominionism.'" at Talk2Action: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/8/31/17047/5683/
11.14.2011 | 1:12pm
AKO says:
"Lesson #4: Don’t rely on fact-checkers to save you – If you lack journalistic integrity and basic research skills, even the world-renowned New Yorker fact-checking department can’t save you from embarrassing yourself."
To often do words get taken out of context. I can understand why, especially if the context is hard to explain, and when talking about the media, if they don't fully understand the context and want to spin something towards their own way, well...
Politicians know that soundbites can easily be taken out of context, so it's wise to over explain everything, and never say anything that can easily be taken out of context.
To often do words get taken out of context. I can understand why, especially if the context is hard to explain, and when talking about the media, if they don't fully understand the context and want to spin something towards their own way, well...
Politicians know that soundbites can easily be taken out of context, so it's wise to over explain everything, and never say anything that can easily be taken out of context.
12.5.2011 | 12:35pm
Army Knowledge Online says:
"Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural but, rather, truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things. Christianity, biblical Christianity, is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth."
When we are put here and given a life, we must decide what facts we choose to believe as "true" and what facts we believe as "false". Throughout our entire life we are constantly trying to figure out the "truths" in life. Even by the time we reach death we may never really truly understand life.
When we are put here and given a life, we must decide what facts we choose to believe as "true" and what facts we believe as "false". Throughout our entire life we are constantly trying to figure out the "truths" in life. Even by the time we reach death we may never really truly understand life.
12.12.2011 | 8:42am
David says:
Great work Mr.Carter.
The saddest fact about all of this is that these 4 rules should be applied every time in every situation by common sense - it's really maddening to see people manipulating (even if unintentionally) and bending the truth, which seems to happen a lot nowadays.
David
The saddest fact about all of this is that these 4 rules should be applied every time in every situation by common sense - it's really maddening to see people manipulating (even if unintentionally) and bending the truth, which seems to happen a lot nowadays.
David
12.28.2011 | 2:38am
Tony Esolen says:
So, somebody from the New Yorker doesn't understand a thing about the long and complicated history of Christian views on rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Their ignorance is as vast as those locust-ridden plains of old. It's easy, though, to figure out. The Left bows down at the altar of the State, so long as the State is controlled by Reely Smart Peeple who know what's best for the dummies, among whose imbecilic number, by the way, are to be counted such feeble minds as Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Dickens, Eliot, Hawthorne, Racine, Cervantes, Manzoni, Undset, Spenser, Donne, Herbert -- just for starters, and just the poets and novelists. So then, anybody who comes around and claims that we ought NOT to render unto Caesar what is God's -- who, in effect, opposes the folding of the church, and the family, and the locale, into the great fat Jabba the State, is -- hey presto! -- a theocrat. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," said a wise man, and another: "He that is giddy thinks the world turns round."
