I know you like Schaeffer and I do, too, but you have to admit there was a somewhat passive side to him. I believe, ultimately, he was not as thorough-going as he could have been. Here's a fascinating letter written to Schaeffer from Cornelius Van Til.
"...to the God who is there..."
This letter reminds me of Whitefield's letter to Wesley -- unvarnished, uncompromising, gentle, and ever aware of the import of its subject.
When I was young, and people asked me a delicate question, I'd ask if they wanted an honest answer or a polite one. I've since learned that they need not be exclusive.
I used to post an excerpt from that letter on my profile page. It's well-worth reading, and a wonderful example of one brother correcting another in a biblical manner.
I know you like Schaeffer and I do, too, but you have to admit there was a somewhat passive side to him. I believe, ultimately, he was not as thorough-going as he could have been.
Dare I say it? "Heck yes!"
About 99% of what I know about Schaeffer comes from his writing, which is to say I know almost nothing of the man himself and of his primary ministry (i.e. an evangelist in Switzerland). And yes, I have to say he was not as thorough in thinking through things as I'd have liked him to be. I, quite frankly, think his eschatology hamstrung many of his arguments. More than twenty years later, I am still deeply indebted to Francis Schaeffer for his book A Christian Manifesto. That book literally changed my life. In comparison to the writers of his time, Schaeffer was a giant.
Gary North devoted nearly a third of his book Political Polytheism to the ministry of Francis Schaeffer. What he writes in that book provides a broader context from which to understand Schaeffer's personal ministry, and his written works. It echos many of my own thoughts re Schaeffer's shortcomings. But given how much Schaeffer "gets right", I prefer to gloss over the other issues when possible. Here's the "money quote" from Political Polytheism, which introduces the section on Schaeffer:
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.
Wait a minute! Our PC culture counts on us being wimpy.
My younger son got in trouble earlier this year for pointing out to his religion teacher that the "coexist" sign she had posted was wrong. He kept asking the teacher why Christians should let others believe they were equals when they would not be saved unless they came to Jesus. Eventually the sign came down.
The PC culture can't handle direct confrontation on the facts. Instead, they count on Christians not speaking up.