Showing posts with label Francis Schaeffer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francis Schaeffer. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Alienation: What is it and what does it Cost





Any good manager must be aware of what is happening in each area of his domain. To not be aware of what is happening in one area might undermine the entire enterprise. He must also ensure that the different parts are working in harmony.

The same principles pertain to our individual lives. If we are alienated from certain parts of ourselves, we will not be able to function properly.

Why are we alienated from ourselves? There might be certain parts we cannot accept. They are just too painful or too disruptive. We therefore try to bury feelings of guilt, shame, and inadequacy.

However, if we are alienated from certain parts of ourselves, we will also be alienated from others. If there are certain parts of ourselves we cannot accept, we will also be unable to accept them when we see them in others. If we cannot tolerate failure in ourselves, we will be uncomfortable when we see it in others.

We are also alienated from ourselves when we adopt a philosophy that refuses to harmonize with the rest of our lives. The writer and apologist, Francis Schaeffer, cites Sigmund Freud’s alienation from himself. Freud was a materialist. For him, human experience was reduced to a series of bio-chemical reactions. Love was reduced to the sexual impulse. Freud understandably wrote to his fiancée:

  • When you come to me, little Princess, love me irrationally.
To love Freud rationally was to understand that her feelings of love were no more bio-chemical responses. Therefore, Freud wanted his fiancée to regard her feelings as irrational – as more than just robotic reactions, as, instead, impregnated with the fullness of meaning.

Freud had a schizoid worldview. His loving feelings were alienated from his materialistic beliefs. Only irrationality could bring them together. He wanted to believe in his feelings, but his worldview prevented him from affirming the message articulated by these feelings.

Similarly, I have often asked college students, “Is it objectively and absolutely wrong to rape?” As easy as it should be to answer this question, it caused considerable discomfort. Why? The mental and emotive parts were at odds and alienated. While their mind informed them that there is nothing absolutely wrong, their feelings offered a very different answer. Answer?

When we experience such dissonance, the natural and healthy response would be to resolve the dissonance by bringing our thoughts into harmony, but they could not. Why not? They had alienated themselves from the voice of their discordant feelings.

Jesus explained this costly failure as the product of our love for the wrong things:

  • This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:19-20)
We have condemned ourselves. Why? Schaeffer explains that we have rejected our appointed role, our station in life:

  • Thus, in rebellion, not staying within the circle of what man is, but trying to move into the circle of the existence of God, man falls crushed within himself at every turn.
When we decide that we are going to be the captain-of-our-own-ship, we reject God – His oversight and boundaries – and reap the consequences of our rebellion against the truth. We no longer want to listen to what our own voices are telling us. We harden ourselves against our guilt, shame, and even what is so patently obvious – that rape is absolutely wrong. We also harden ourselves against God’s inner voice, which has become an unwanted interference and a threat to our autonomy.

Yes, we are the captain-of-our-ship, but it is a rudderless and directionless ship, without a light, map, or even a destination.

Friday, November 7, 2014

A Letter to Frank Schaeffer about Jesus and the Bible




Your father, Francis Schaeffer, was a defender of the Christian faith, and I am therefore so glad to see that you also are a defender of Jesus!

  • If Jesus is God as evangelicals and Roman Catholics claim he is, then the choice is clear. We have to read the book–including the New Testament–as he did, and Jesus didn’t like the “Bible” of his day.
Wow, you really threw me a curve ball there. I never dreamed that “Jesus didn’t like the ‘Bible’ of his day. I guess He must have had a different one. Didn’t he say:

  • “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)
I guess Jesus must have been referring to a different “Law” and the “Prophets.” Whatever, these might have been, it seems that he must have really venerated them. Are you suggesting then that the Pharisees had a different Bible?

I am also puzzled by this statement:

  • “Worship in the Spirit and in truth,” is not about a book, let alone “salvation” through correct ideas or tradition.
I started to wonder what Jesus meant by His teaching that we must “Worship in the Spirit and in truth?” So I went back to John 4 and found that Jesus had contrasted this requirement with the Samaritan worship:

  • You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. (John 4:22-23) 
I was surprised to find Jesus telling the Samaritan woman that she had to receive the revelation that had come to the Jews if she wanted to be saved – not very inclusive to me! I had thought that there were multiple ways to be saved, but Jesus keeps coming back to the Bible:

  • “It is written [in Deuteronomy 8, right?]: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Mat. 4:4)
It certainly doesn’t seem that Jesus hated the Bible. How am I misunderstanding him?
Your next statement really confuses me. Are you saying that the Torah is on the same plain as “church tradition?”

  • Every time Jesus mentioned the equivalent of a church tradition, the Torah, he qualified it with something like this: “The scriptures say thus and so, but I say…” Jesus undermined the scriptures and religious tradition in favor of empathy.
You inspired me to go back and to read the Sermon on the Mount, but I couldn’t find where Jesus corrected Scripture with these words: ““The scriptures say thus and so, but I say…” Instead, I found Jesus saying:

  • “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder.” (Mat. 5:21)
Hmm? Perhaps I read that wrong? Or perhaps I have a sub-standard translation. Please, be assured that I am convinced that you would never try to mislead anyone! You have always demonstrated such exemplary love and inclusiveness, that no one could ever accuse you of wrongly battering Evangelicals and Catholics. But I was surprised by your statement:

  • In evangelical and Roman Catholic fundamentalist terms, Jesus was a rule-breaking humanist who wasn’t “saved.”
I thought that they did believe that Jesus was saved. I guess I just haven’t been around long enough. You, of all people, certainly understand the Evangelical mind. I’m so grateful that I have been able to learn from you. My own reason seems to serve me so poorly. (BTW, I really do enjoy your painting!)