Tag Archive

A while back I read Harold J. Brown’s contribution to a book called, Francis A. Schaeffer: Portraits of the Man and His Work. Brown’s essay was entitled, “Standing Against the World.” I was struck by Brown’s presentation of Schaeffer as a “modern-day Athanasius.” Brown explains:

“Like Athanasius, Francis Schaeffer will not be remembered as the greatest theologian of our day. Others, such as Herman Dooyeweerd, F.F. Bruce, and Carl F.H. Henry, have produced a greater mass of solid scholarship. Yet without Schaeffer’s stand “contra mundum,” the best work of such specialized scholars might have been insufficient to check the temptations to compromise and accommodation that confronted evangelicalism after 1945 just as they confronted orthodoxy after 313.”

Brown gives two examples of Schaeffer going it alone against the evangelical grain.

First, he notes the Schaeffer was unwilling to swallow the theology of Karl Barth that fed a growing movement of neoorthdoxy. At the time, many evangelicals had embraced and place a great deal of hope into Barth’s theology to help them make ground against theological liberalism that nearly dominated all of academia. Schaeffer declared this a great mistake and warned that it would “Trojan Horse” some of Barth’s critical theological errors into the church. Dr. Brown expands:

“A number of evangelicals sought to claim [Barth’s] authority in support of their own views, hoping in this way to firm up the scholarly prestige of their evangelical convictions. As a matter of fact, Barth’s fortunes were already going in the Eclipse on the European continent—in part because they were in fact too close to Biblical orthodoxy, but also because of a weakness that many evangelicals missed, but which Schaeffer saw: Barth denounced liberalism, which had undermined the foundations of orthodoxy, without himself rebuilding the foundations….There is no doubt that Barth was antiliberal, and that he affirmed the central doctrines of the Christian faith. However, his failure to assert Biblical infallibility and the historicity of the Gospel accounts meant his affirmations rested on his own charismatic authority rather than on that of Scripture.”

Second, he notes that Schaeffer was unwilling to be impressed by celebrity status of Billy Graham and the massive “results” his crusades were producing. Schaeffer thought Graham’s approach would, “produce a flock of pseudo-converts” because the appeal was for, “an emotional decision without giving an adequate warrant in history and reason.” This stand against a beloved Christian rockstar led to Schaeffer being tossed aside by many of the prominent Christians of his time such as Carl F.H. Henry and Harold Lindsell. Brown recalls, “They were put off by Schaeffer’s pickiness and apparent intolerance and tended to write him off as they did militant separatists such as Bob Jones and Carl McIntire.”

We all could stand to take a lesson from Schaeffer. Being faithful to Christ will mean not just standing for the gospel but also standing against any diminishing of that gospel. This means we might have to take issue with some or even most of the popular theologians and pastors such as Rob Bell, Tim Keller, and N.T. Wright. This, of course, will get us toss aside and labeled as “picky and intolerant” by many of our peers. Nonetheless, we must not be impressed and drawn into the compromise of a Christianity that is all too often drunk on the worship of Christian celebrity. We must be like Paul who was willing stand alone and to publicly call out the famed Apostle Peter because his actions weren’t in line with the gospel. Our age is in desperate need of voices that are willing to echo the courageous stand of Schaeffer and Athanasius.  

Brown’s closing comments are worth noting:

“Like Athanasuis, Schaeffer took stands—especially in his last years—which some would call intemperate and inflexible…but in Schaeffer’s case, we know the rigor of his convictions was always tempered with love and understanding in person-to-person relationships as well as in public debates…Schaeffer not only held the line for Biblical orthodoxy in his generation as Athanasius had done…[he] showed the next generation not merely that they will need to take stands, but where to take them and how to do so, in Paul’s words, “speaking the truth in love.”