Posted on 12/27/2007 5:14:07 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Take a moment to consider this short excerpt from Francis Schaeffer's sermon, "What Difference Has Looking Made?" The sermon is an extended reflection on the experience of the shepherds to whom the angels appeared at the birth of Jesus, as well as what that experience has to teach us:
Doctrinal clarity matters a great deal; but Luke does not allow his Gospel to end merely with a proper emphasis on the necessity of the great doctrinal truths, and our study should not end there either. Before his ascension Jesus told the disciples "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). Orthodox doctrine must be proclaimed.(Francis Schaeffer, excerpted from "What Difference Has Looking Made?" in No Little People.When the shepherds had seen the baby Jesus, "they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child" (Luke 2:17). Just as the shepherds' proclamation was spontaneous, carrying out Jesus' final instructions should be natural to us. If we really believe the truth of the gospel, we should voluntarily declare it. The spontaneity of telling part of the Christmas story.
Yet it is intriguing that the telling is not the final emphasis. The next to the last verse of the Gospel of Luke tells us that the disciples "worshiped him" (Luke 24:52). The doctrinal reality and the telling of it are never allowed to stand alone; in tremendous balance with it exists worship, personal relationship.
The same thing was true in Bethlehem, in this case with the wise men and the baby Jesus, for "they fell down, and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:11). They did not only bring frankincense and myrrh; they really worshiped.
But even worship is not the end of the matter. After Christ's resurrection and ascension the disciples "returned to Jerusalem with great joy" (Luke 24:52). Joy is part of this, too. Certainly the shepherds were glad. the angel had said to them, "Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:10, 11).
This does not mean a stupid kind of happiness or a sick smile, nor does it mean there are no tears or that things in this world are not as bad as God says they are. This joy is connected with the reality of our knowledge of who Jesus is, our relationship with Him and our worship of Him.
Imagine you are a shepherd on the hillside, and when the heavenly host appears you are not to be afraid; you are to have joy.
It is the same with all the teaching of the Gospel which flows from the event when the shepherds saw and heard the angels, when they ran down the hill and looked upon Jesus. And at the end of Luke's gospel, while not despising the doctrine or the telling of it, the central thing is worshiping the Lord--not coldly, but with joy. It is tremendous that the closing of the gospel of Luke fits so perfectly with the second chapter: "I bring you good tidings of great joy." "And they worshiped him…with great joy."
Francis A. Schaeffer ping
Francis Schaeffer...I remember a pastor who said that Schaeffer was the closest thing to the prophet Isiah we had in modern times.
In 1989, a few years after Schaeffer's death, fellow Westminster Seminary student Gary North wrote this of Schaeffer:
"...compared to Hal Lindsey, he was a breath of fresh air. Compared to Robert Schuller, he was a theological life-support system. Compared to Tony Campolo, he was the Apostle Paul."
Please add me to any Francis Schaeffer ping list. He is one of the most influential Christians in my own walk of faith.
Done!
Amen!
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Thank you for that note from Dr. North. North had some words of criticism for Schaeffer in Appendix D of his book Crossed Fingers, a classic account of the collapse of the Presbyterian Church into liberalism.
But one is allowed to admire another man even while criticizing certain parts.
I'd do it, but it looks like you're already on it! Here's the pinglist in order of names added: Gamecock; ksen; HarleyD; suzyq5558; Frumanchu; Dr. Eckleburg; keeper53; bygrace85; hope; Zack Nguyen; Taliesan; baldie; Towed_Jumper; GLENNS; halieus; EternalVigilance; thePilgrim; suzyjaruki; A2J; newheart; LiteKeeper; newberger; grey_whiskers; Freedom'sWorthIt
Thank you for that note from Dr. North. North had some words of criticism for Schaeffer in Appendix D of his book Crossed Fingers, a classic account of the collapse of the Presbyterian Church into liberalism.
North devoted nearly a third of his book Political Polytheism (where my earlier quote came from) to the ministry of Francis Schaeffer. What he wrote there provides a broader context from which to understand the comments in Crossed Fingers. Here's that earlier quote from Political Polytheism, which introduces the section on Schaeffer, expanded on:
My essay on Rev. Schaeffer is mostly critical. I believe that he gave away far too much ground to the humanists and liberals who were the targets of his critiques. I believe that his apologetic approach, like Cornelius Van Til's, was deeply compromised by antinomianism and by eschatological pessimism. To prove my case, I have had to take a critical stand against him. This is a one-sided, specialized essay, not a well-rounded assessment of his personal ministry overall. I believe that on the whole, he (like Van Til) fought the good evangelical fight, given his self-imposed theological handicaps, his lack of formal academic training beyond seminary, and his geographical isolation in Switzerland (To some extent, all three were advantages: they kept him out of the increasingly debilitating clutches of the academic compromisers who control the humanities classrooms of the modern Christian liberal arts colleges). He inflicted serious wounds on humanists within the modern evangelical Church, which is why they are so vindictive, how that he is gone. Furthermore, his counsel and books brought many intelligent young people to saving faith in Jesus Christ in a turbulent period of Western history. Finally, he did elevate the terms of evangelical intellectual discourse from 1968 until his death. My disagreement with Rev. Schaeffer centers on the fact that he did not go far enough down the confrontational road. He waffled on key issues. He operated a halfway house intellectual ministry, with all the liabilities associated with any ideologically middle-of-the-road ministry. He did, however, sell over two million books. None of his published critics can match that performance, including me.I am comparing him to what he could have been, had he remained more faithful to the older Puritan standards of the Westminster Confession of Faith that he affirmed at his ordination. I am comparing him to what he might have been, had he taken the Old Testament case laws more seriously. I am comparing him to what he should have been had he thoroughly abandoned the myth of neutrality that he publicly attacked, and had he really adopted the presuppositional apologetic approach that he sometimes claimed that he accepted. Most of all, I am comparing him to what we needed him to be, had he turned away from the political pluralism that he adhered to. Pluralism's moral foundation is relativism, which he forthrightly warned against--a warning which has outraged his neo-evangelical academic critics. But compared to Hal Lindsey, he was a breath of fresh air. Compared to Robert Schuller, he was a theological life-support system. Compared to Tony Campolo, he was the Apostle Paul.
Thank you very much! An even handed critique. I shall have to go find it and read it.
Ping to resurrect this thread for the holidays
Well worth resurrecting!
Please add me to Francis Schaeffer ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.