Budziszewski on Francis Schaeffer: A Christian Manifesto

I was in high school when Francis Schaeffer published A Christian Manifesto in 1981.  By the time I was an undergrad a few years later, I had been introduced to Schaeffer by association with IVCF.  Well, actually, it was by association with a particular student who was involved in IVCF.  I was rather partial at the time to a rather more liturgical form of Christian piety.  In those days they served sherry after High Mass on Thursdays.  But I digress.

In "Evangelicals in the Public Square", Budziszewski claims "it was Schaeffer who first made evangelicals aware of the culture war, an odd sort of war in which, he complained, so far only the other side had shown up to fight [73].  In response to what he saw as a growing systemic program of secular humanism, Schaeffer claimed that Christians have been negligent because they "have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals". (Manifesto, rev. ed.; Wheaton: Crossway, 1982, p 17).

Budziszewski examines several of Schaeffer's points.  First is the gradual replacement of a "vaguely Christian" worldview (Manifesto, 17) with the worldview of secular humanism.  In great part Schaeffer blames lawyers and liberal theologians [Budziszewski, 74-75].  What has happened, Schaeffer argued, is that Christian pietism has allowed for a compartmentalization of faith - Christians "have acted as though nothing more were at stake than a few particular truths, like Christ's virgin birth..." [75]  Budziszewski see in this a bit of a swipe at the Fundamentalist movement.  While the "secularists" have seen things in terms of transforming a whole society, Christians have been involved in only "bits and pieces".

Authority and the State: aside

Schaeffer was concerned with the removal of moral absolutes.  The overall result of the secularizing tendency, particularly in the state, is to eliminate any basis for authority beyond the state.  The flip side of course is that there is then no limiting of the state:  it is the state which can grant rights, and therefore the state can remove them.  There is no grounding of authority in anything higher than the collective.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

It is interesting to stop at this point and consider the preamble to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Why does our Charter recognize "the supremacy of God" and the "rule of law" - in that order?  It is argued by some that such concepts and language have no place in the state.  But what are the implications of removing any notion of an authority higher than the state? And what are the implications for a state which recognizes no authority, no "supremacy", greater than its own collective?

To be continued:  laundry calls...

related posts:

• J. Budziszewski: Evangelicals in the Public Square 
• Budziszewski on Carl FH Henry, Evangelical Politics and The Uneasy Conscience
• Coffee and the Charter of Rights

Comments

[John K]

Wonderful post. I'm looking forward to the rest. Please let me know when the laundry is done.

[joseph]

John - the laundry is done, but now I'll need to fold it and put it away...!

[John K]

Well then, I await eagerly the completion of this domestic task.

[Tim]

You were in high school in 1981?

Good grief, you are a youngster!!!

[joseph]

Tim - and 1981 wasn't even my graduating year...

[Donald]

Despite what the preable says, it would seem that the Charter is fairly consistently interpreted as if the individual is the highest authority in the land. By the way what year did you actually graduate, I'm 1983.

[Donald]

Uh that would be preamble