In an earlier post I commented that it was because of Francis Schaeffer that I came to love philosophy. Now, by the time I first returned to the Lord, I had already had a course in college philosophy. Frankly, I had found it boring and received a D in it. But, Francis was different. I have read that he was a popularizer rather than a philosopher, and that his intent was purely evangelistic. If so, then I can only say that we need more popularizers in our universities, and, perhaps, fewer incomprehensible polysyllabic monograph writers.
His famous trilogy is: The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, and He is There and He is not Silent. Those books finally taught me to think about subjects such as epistemology–how do we know what we know?–, logic, illogic, and reason, etc. But, he had an additional effect that I do not think he ever expected to have. You see, his books trace the decline in “biblical” thinking in the West. It was quite a revelation to me that so much “naturalism” had crept into Western Christian thinking. Thus, his books were what began to put doubts in my mind as to what I had taken for granted in Christianity. Eventually, several years after I had finished seminary, I even went on to do a Master’s in Philosophy, and deliberately did it at a state university so that I would get the full experience of philosophy.
In fact, his analysis was precisely what let me see that the Protestant Reformers were often speaking as much out of a philosophy of nominalism as they were out of a biblical worldview. For instance, I knew an Anglican bishop in Peru, who, when asked to bless the new cathedral privately commented that he was not sure what he was actually doing. He did not believe that buildings could be consecrated. That is, the building and/or the “atmosphere” of it would not change whether he blessed it or did not bless it. In the same way, he viewed the Eucharist merely as a sign and symbol that worked as though it were Body and Blood, for a “thing” could not be two things at once. It could not be both bread and Body.
But, more than that, it was Francis teaching me to think logically and analytically that so helped me to re-evaluate my beliefs. The charismatic group with which I had been as a young Christian had to do the same type of analysis that most Protestants have to do. That is, they had to say that the Church essentially and immediately fell after the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles. I can remember reading, even in books published by groups descended from the Reformation, statements expressing how they could not understand how the Early Church could have fallen so fast from the heights of Pauline theology.
It was when it struck me that such an attitude did not make sense that I began to re-analyze what I thought to be true. You see, in order to hold that position, I had to hold that the Twelve Apostles had not been successful in training their successors. No, I did not actually hold that position. I would have probably made an argument to the effect that the Twelve Apostles did train their successors, but that their successors were unable to fully understand them. But, in effect, I held that position. They were unsuccessful in teaching correct worship practices. They were unsuccessful in setting up an appropriate beginning church structure. They were unsuccessful in keeping pagan practices out of the Church. Worse, not only had they not been successful, they had positively failed to pass on the road of salvation correctly. I have read more than one book that bewails the “lack” of preaching and teaching of the penal substitution theory of the atonement by the Early Church Fathers.
I would not have caught those contradictions had it not been for Francis’ books. And, once I finally realized the contradictions, I began to read and study anew, now with the mindset that the Twelve Apostles had been successful. I did not need to assume that the Early Church Fathers were perfect. I only had to see them as being the recipients of successful training. Once I did that, it began to challenge my views on many subjects. In fact, it eventually led me to Orthodoxy.
So, thank you Francis Schaeffer. Your courage in looking at Christian history, your willingness to do difficult philosophical analysis yet make it understandable started me on a journey that has been most profitable.
I am comfortable with the reality that much of the church plantings by the Apostles and their early successors were failures. All you have to do is read the New Testament to see how fragile and vulnerable were some of these churches. And, of course, John’s letter to the seven churches warning of their candle being removed came true.
I am not sure what you mean about the warning of the lampstands. Ephesus never collapsed as a Church. Laodicea’s Church did not close until the city itself collapsed. Some of the churches did not make it, but some did. As a matter of fact, the majority of the church plantings by the Apostles were successful. Some estimates of Church growth in the first three centuries say that up to 25% of the Roman Empire might have been Christian by the time of Constantine. This is why the persecutions by pagan emperors became so intense by the third century. It was because the Church was growing so fast.
But, the claim of the Radical Reformers was not simply that some churches collapsed. The claim was that the Church, as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, was a mistaken, even heretical, Church though they were growing. Their claim is that, essentially from the beginning, only a small minority of the Church was faithful. In other words, they held to a remnant theology, even from the earliest times of the Church.
I converted to Orthodoxy in 2008, from a protestant background. I only just today finished reading a biography about Francis Schaeffer, and I have to say, I can totally see how your reading of his books would lead you to Orthodoxy. Just from this one small book, the part that intrigued me the most was how philosophy and the discovery of truth changed and how that has entered the Western Church. If I wasn’t already Orthodox, I’d be looking it to it now! I intend to read some of Schaefer’s actual books, just to get a better understanding of the philosophy and logic and how it affected the Western Church and the West in general. If you have any other books that you think would be helpful too, I am all ears!