Posted on 04/10/2005 2:04:48 PM PDT by logos
A leading motif in the Schaeffer corpus is the divided field of knowledge and meaning. It was Schaeffer's staunch conviction that the twentieth century ushered in an age of fragmentation. Reason and faith, intellect and imagination, matter and meaning all have been shoved into mutually exclusive compartments. In fact, a young C.S. Lewis serves as a prime example of this type of dichotomized existence: "The two hemispheres of my mind were in the sharpest contrast. One the one side a many-islanded sea of poetry and myth; on the other a glib and shallow 'rationalism'. Nearly all that I loved I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I believed to be real I thought grim and meaningless."
Recognizing that everyone possesses a natural aversion to dissonance, Schaeffer deftly and compassionately nudged people to the point of tension in their own lives and then offered the self-consistent, comprehensive, livable worldview of historic, biblical Christianity as a hopeful alternative. We suggest that this method of "taking the roof off" and the commitment of both our apologists to a unified body of knowledge and meaning are important examples for the church today.
Some would insist, however, that the charge of intellectual inconsistency has lost its leverage in an age that devalues reason. Consequently, this notion of pushing people to the point of tension is no longer a viable apologetic maneuver. Dick Keyes is one contemporary L'Abri leader who is unwilling to discard the method altogether but does believe we ought to replace the term consistency in our apologetic vernacular with honesty. After all, many postmodern people do not care about the notion of cognitive consistency, but there is widespread agreement that we ought to be true to ourselves or sincere about our own beliefs.
Keys has accurately identified the popular sympathies of our postmodern age, and we applaud his attempt to adapt this method accordingly. But it is not clear that such a maneuver is altogether desirable. If honesty is simply used as a more palatable synonym for intellectual consistency, a case can be made. But if the nonbeliever is led to think that a self-consistent vision of reality is not an integral part of the Christian faith, then a grave loss has been suffered. Our goal is not to simply usher people into the faith but to see them thoroughly transformed into entirely integrated beings, and this includes a view of reality that is self-consistent, comprehensive and livable. We would also do well to remember that an integrated worldview necessarily will include a commitment to true but inexhaustive truth and, as noted in chapter four, a willingness to think deeply and carefully about the subject of mystery.
A blessed Lord's Day to you all.
And also to you, dear logos!
Thank you so very much for this excellent series.
Ah! The joys of that faux "Cartesian split" -- culminating in the so-called "two-culture war" -- come back to haunt us still.
(Descartes must be spinning in his grave; he was a deeply committed Christian, and I imagine in no way foresaw what the dogmatic relativists and materialists would end up doing with/to his insights in regard to matter and spirit.... Certainly he never intended to posit any "false dichotomy" such as seems current today.)
The so-called Cartesian split not only "split knowledge," it "split man." Schaeffer -- and Lewis -- wish to return us to the state of original wholeness of the episteme, and to a full reconciliation of body and spirit, mind and matter, which is the essential nature of incarnate man.
Thank you for this excellent post, logos!
As you say, that was surely not Descartes' intent. And I agree with you in applauding this effort to undo the damage.
Thank you so much for your excellent post!
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.